TrueTheology.net

A discussion analyzing the correctness of 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem and its relevance to 1914 CE, according to Biblical and Historic evidence

Forum rules
“Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

I have found many quotes that are simply misleading and this is one simple example:In regards to when Jerusalem was destroyed the Watchtower will quote Josephus writing in his book which I own “Against Apion” Book 1, Par 19 they will quote the following words “and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; When it so happened that our city was desolate DURING THE INTERVAL OF SEVENTY YEARS, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia”. They will be quick to say oh he is saying that from the time Jerusalem was destroyed until Cyrus was 70 years, but wait it does not say that it says “DURING THE INTERVAL OF SEVENTY YEARS” which interval is the question. The seventy years interval referred to here is not the same as the 70 years of the desolation of the Temple. This can be clearly shown if anyone reads the entire article.

What they don’t want anyone to see that a couple of pages later Josephus says the following:Again, “Against Apion” Book 1, par 21 ( just three paragraph later) “These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, LAID OUR TEMPLE DESOLATE, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for FIFTY YEARS; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundation were laid”. Josephus clearly shows it was 50 years from the time the Temple was laid desolate until the year 537 when the foundation were laid, but the Temple did not get rebuilt until 517 BC. 587 BC-517 BC (70 years).This is not a single occurrence they continually lie. I cannot believe people that have so much time in their hands could need read just two pages later when they have been told this is not true. I just want you to know I have the book so no it is not some Apostate telling me these things.

Is There a “Bible Chronology” without secular sources?Despite the relative nature of the Biblical dates, it is nonetheless not impossible to date events mentioned in the Bible. But, the simple truth is that as related to connecting with our Christian era reckoning without secular sources there is no Bible Chronology, no dating of Biblical events in terms of years “BCE” or “CE”.When for instance, some Jehovah’s Witnesses point to the fact that modern historians date the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE and then claim that “the chronology of the Bible is in agreement with this date, they show they have not really understood what relative nature of the Biblical chronology actually implies. Since, the Bible does not give a specific relative date, for either the Fall of Babylon or the destruction of Jerusalem, the statement the Bible “agrees” with the secular dating of this event to 539 BCE is completely meaningless. It is equally meaningless and misleading to state that the secular date for the desolation of Jerusalem, 587 BCE, disagrees with the chronology of the Bible, since the absolute date for that event is not given in the Bible either. The interesting fact is that there is a greater amount of data to establish the destruction of Jerusalem to the date of 587/586 BCE (Chronology, Archeological, Historical, Astronomical data) then there is that establishes 539 BCE as the date for the destruction of Babylon. But, the Watchtower choses one over the other for their own reasons which cannot be any less than a great deception. As the previous Article shows the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE is not in contradiction with the Bible Chronology, but with the Watchtower interpretation.

We can address this post after we talk about the Josephus problem first. It will help keep things easier to read and understand if we isolate our topics. So let's table your first post until we have discussed the Josephus issue. Then, we can either proceed with this post as our next topic of discussion or one of the points made in the article that you sent that I posted above.

Regards,Rotherham

hperez wrote:Is There a “Bible Chronology” without secular sources?Despite the relative nature of the Biblical dates, it is nonetheless not impossible to date events mentioned in the Bible. But, the simple truth is that as related to connecting with our Christian era reckoning without secular sources there is no Bible Chronology, no dating of Biblical events in terms of years “BCE” or “CE”.When for instance, some Jehovah’s Witnesses point to the fact that modern historians date the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE and then claim that “the chronology of the Bible is in agreement with this date, they show they have not really understood what relative nature of the Biblical chronology actually implies. Since, the Bible does not give a specific relative date, for either the Fall of Babylon or the destruction of Jerusalem, the statement the Bible “agrees” with the secular dating of this event to 539 BCE is completely meaningless. It is equally meaningless and misleading to state that the secular date for the desolation of Jerusalem, 587 BCE, disagrees with the chronology of the Bible, since the absolute date for that event is not given in the Bible either. The interesting fact is that there is a greater amount of data to establish the destruction of Jerusalem to the date of 587/586 BCE (Chronology, Archeological, Historical, Astronomical data) then there is that establishes 539 BCE as the date for the destruction of Babylon. But, the Watchtower choses one over the other for their own reasons which cannot be any less than a great deception. As the previous Article shows the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE is not in contradiction with the Bible Chronology, but with the Watchtower interpretation.

As regards the quotes in question from Josephus referencing both "70" and "50" years, I believe a closer examination of those will reveal why there is no compelling reason to think that Josephus was confused or that he changed his mind and went with the 50 years instead of the 70 years for the span of Jerusalem's desolation.

If you think about it, it would be odd for him to change that thought within the span of only two very short chapters in his "Against Apion" without any clarification as to why, or without any kind of explanation as to the different numbers, with such close proximity to each other.

Therefore, there are some things to consider that should shed some light on this supposed contradiction by Josephus.

We should keep in mind that when we read the kind of objection that you have offered it makes it sound as if there are but the two references to compare when in fact, Josephus referred to the year length of the desolation of Jerusalem as being 70 years a total of five times, and the 50 years is mentioned but once. And as mentioned, if he really did think that it was 50, why would he leave the erroneous figure of 70 unchanged just two short chapters (nearly just paragraphs) prior? Was something else going in the quotation concerning the 50 years? We believe it is quite possible that there was.

Here are all the relevant quotes of Josephus:

...But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions, and what proved to be true, that they did ill, and deluded the king; that the Egyptians would be of no advantage to them, but that the king of Babylon would renew the war against Jerusalem, and besiege it again, and would destroy the people by famine, and carry away those that remained into captivity, and would take away what they had as spoils, and would carry off those riches that were in the temple; nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years."(Antiquities X., 7:3)

... The king of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years. "( Antiquities, X., 9:6,7)

,, In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and [b]after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, [/b]he would restore them again to the land of their fathers , and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity; and these things God did afford them." (Antiquities, XI., 1:1

"I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories; which records have a great agreement with our books in other things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say ... This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation [Babylon], gives us a history of ... Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaideans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means , he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyms king of Persia ."( Apion, I.:19;)

"These accounts agree with true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years;[/b] but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (Apion, I.:21)

The very first thing that we should keep in mind is that in the "50 year" reference there is evidence that the text has been tampered with due to the manuscript variances that exist. It has been noted by scholars that in some manuscripts ( L and Latin) that it does not read 50 but reads just 7. That demonstrates a clear tampering with the text at some point. It is true that Eusibius reads it as fifty but one has to wonder if the text had been altered even by his time. Due to the textual variants, one has to ask if the 50 year reference is as reliable as the five other 70 year references which do not display any evidence of tampering or textual variants that I am aware of.

Regardless, there is also another way to read what Josephus wrote in this particular place. You will note that in Barclay's rendition it says the following:

These words contain the truth in agreement with our books; for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign[b] and it was left without trace for 50 years, and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.

This alternate reading is significant and can present a different picture of what is being referenced. As to the context of the "fifty," first note that the "seventy years" in Against Apion, just about two paragraphs away from the 50 year reference, is directly tied to the city and land being desolate, with the mention of the temple being burned. The "fifty years" though is specifically tied to the temple being LEFT WITHOUT A TRACE.

So, it could be viewed this way: First it is laid desolate, and then it lays in obscurity for fifty years. This leaves open the possibility that initially the ruins were visible to those who would pass by but after 20 years of further decay, erosion and plant growth, the temple was obscure for the remaining 50 years of the total desolation. This would make Josephus completely harmonious throughout his references and that stands as a more reasonable approach to the discrepancy, if there was indeed a real discrepancy to begin with.

This would explain why just about two paragraphs prior, Josephus made reference to the 70 years and it is readily apparent from the other 70 years references that he believed that the land was left as "desert" for 70 years. This explanation answers why Josephus would use two figures in the same apologetic book just two chapters apart, the "seventy years" referring to the entire period and the "fifty years" referring to the time when the remnants of the temple further deteriorated and were overgrown and it passed out of view from the standpoint of those who would pass by.

Given the reasons above, there simply is no reason to quote the "fifty years" as if it had the same authority as the "seventy years," especially since it may not even refer to the entire period of desolation.

Was it Desolation or Servitude? Was Josephus wrong? Did Josephus ever changed his figures?

This is a lengthy reading, but it shows that "YES" the nations including Jews "Served" for 70 years, since many were taken captives. Jeremiah's prophecy would commence with Servitude and not the desolation specifically of the Jewish Temple, but of the Nations surrounding Judea. It is inconsistent, to say the least, to argue that the seventy years of desolation foretold for the nation of Israel and Jerusalem, started precisely seventy years before their release from Babylonian captivity, when we don't apply that same measurement to the other nations who were under the same seventy year judgment. Or is there anyone who might argue that they were all laid waste in the same year, namely 607 B.C.E., and then released upon the fall of Babylon seventy years later? The other problem is that the Bible clearly shows the 70 year period ended in 539 BCE when he judged Babylon not two years later.

Jeremiah 52:28–30 does not give a complete number of those deported, and some commentators also suggest that not all deportations are mentioned in the text.26 At least the deportation in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar described by Daniel is not mentioned by Jeremiah―which does not prove that it did not take place. The reason why it is not included among the deportations enumerated in Jeremiah 52:28–30 most probably is that it was a small deportation only, consisting of Jews chosen from among “the royal offspring and of the nobles” with the intention of using them as servants at the royal palace. (Daniel 1:3–4) The important thing is that Daniel, independently of Berossus, mentions this deportation in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Against the clear statements of both Daniel and Berossus, the Watch Tower Society refers to the Jewish historian Josephus, who claims that, in the year of the battle of Carchemish (during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year), Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea.”27 The Watch Tower publication argues that this conflicts with the claim that the 70-year servitude began in that accession year Josephus wrote this more than 600 years after Daniel and almost 400 years after Berossus. Even if he were right, this would not contradict the conclusion that the servitude of the nations surrounding Judah began in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah’s prophecy clearly applies the servitude, not to the Jews, but to “these nations” (Jeremiah 25:11), that is, the nations surrounding Judah. (See Chapter 5 above, section A-1.) In fact, Josephus even supports the conclusion that these nations became subservient to Nebuchadnezzar in his accession year, as he states that the king of 24 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (1988), p. 415. 25 New Bible Dictionary, 2nd edition, ed. by J. D. Douglas et al (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 630. 26 See Albertus Pieters’ discussion in From the Pyramids to Paul (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1935), pp. 184–189. 27 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” p. 188, quoting from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews X, vi,1.

Babylon at that time “took all Syria, as far as Pelusium, excepting Judea.” Pelusium lay on the border of Egypt. There is no reason, however, to believe that Josephus’ statement is more trustworthy than the information given by Daniel and Berossus. Josephus here evidently presented a conclusion of his own, based on a misunderstanding of 2 Kings 24:1. Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg, in his thorough discussion of Daniel 1:1ff., gives the following comment on the expression “excepting Judea” in Josephus’ Antiquities X, vi, 1: It should not be thought that Josephus got the parex tes Ioudaias [excepting Judea] from a source no longer available to us. What follows shows clearly that he just derived it from a misunderstanding of the passage at 2 Kings 24:1. As he erroneously understood the three years mentioned there as the interval between the two invasions, he thought that no invasion could be presumed before the 8th year of Jehoiakim.28 Josephus’ statement thus carries little weight against the testimony of Berossus, who evidently, unlike Josephus, got his information from sources preserved from the Neo-Babylonian period itself, and the testimony of Daniel, as one personally involved in the deportation he himself describes. The Watch Tower Society next quotes two passages from Josephus’ works in which the seventy years are described as seventy years of desolation (Antiquities X, ix, 7, and Against Apion, I, 19).29 But they conceal the fact that Josephus, in his last reference to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, states that the desolation lasted for fifty years, not seventy! The statement is found in Against Apion I, 21, where Josephus quotes Berossus’ statement on the Neo- Babylonian reigns, and says: This statement is both correct and in accordance with our books [that is, the Holy Scriptures]. For in the latter it is recorded that Nabochodonosor in the eighteenth year of his reign devastated our temple, that for fifty years it ceased to exist, that in the

28 Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniels und die Integrität des Sacharjah (Berlin, 1831), p. 57. Translated from the German. 29 Josephus mentions the seventy years five times in his works, viz., at Antiquities X, 7, 3; X, 9, 7; XI, 1, 1; XX, 10, 2; and Against Apion I, 19. In these passages the seventy years are alternatingly referred to as a period of slavery, captivity, or desolation, extending from the destruction of Jerusalem until the first year of Cyrus.Attempts to Overcome the Evidence 299 second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and lastly that in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.30 In support of this statement Josephus quotes, not only the figures of Berossus, but also the records of the Phoenicians, which give the same length for this period. Thus in this passage Josephus contradicts and refutes his earlier statements on the length of the period of desolation. Is it really honest to quote Josephus in support of the idea that the desolation lasted for seventy years, but conceal the fact that he in his latest statement on the length of the period argues that it lasted for fifty years? It is quite possible, even probable, that in this last passage he corrected his earlier statements about the length of the period. The translator of Josephus, William Whiston, wrote a special dissertation on Josephus’ chronology, entitled “Upon the Chronology of Josephus,” which he included in his publication of

30 Josephus’ Against Apion I, 21 is here quoted from the translation of H. St. J. Thackeray, published in the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1993 reprint of the 1926 edition), pp. 224–225. Some defenders of the watch Tower Society’s chronology claim that there is a textual problem with the “fifty years,” pointing out that some manuscripts have “seven years” instead of “fifty” at I, 21, which some earlier scholars felt could be a corruption for “seventy” Modern textual critics, however, have demonstrated that this conclusion is wrong. It has been shown that all extant Greek manuscripts of Against Apion are later copies of a Greek manuscript from the twelfth century CE., Laurentianus 69, 22. That the figure “seven” in these manuscripts is corrupt is agreed upon by all modern scholars. Further, it is universally held by all modem textual critics that the best and most reliable witnesses to the original text of Against Apion are found in the quotations by the church fathers, especially by Eusebius, who quotes extensively and usually literally and faithfully from Josephus’ works. Against Apion I, 21 is quoted in two of Eusebius’ works: (1) in his Preparation for the Gospel, I, 550, 18–22, and (2) in his Chronicle (preserved only in an Armenian version), 24, 29–25, 5. Both of these works have “50 years” at I, 21. The most important of the two works is the first, of which a number of manuscripts have been preserved from the tenth century C.E. onwards. All modern critical editions of the Greek text of Against Apion have “fifty” (Greek, pentêkonta) at Against Apion 1, 21, including those of B. Niese (1889), S. A. Naber (1896), H. St. J. Thackeray (1926), and T. Reinach & L. Blum (1930). Niese’ s critical edition of the Greek text of Against Apion is still regarded as the standard edition, and all later editions are based on—and improvements of—his text. A new critical textual edition of all the works of Josephus is presently being prepared by Dr. Heintz Schreckenberg, but it will probably take many years still before it is ready for publication. Finally, it should be observed that Josephus’ statement about the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus’ figures are “both correct and in accordance with our books.” Thus the context, too, requires the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21.

Josephus’ complete works as Appendix V.31 In this careful study Whiston points out that often in the later parts of his works, Josephus attempted to correct his earlier figures. Thus he demonstrates that Josephus first gives the length of the period from the Exodus to the building of the temple as 592 years, which figure he later changed to 612.32 The next period, from the building of the temple to its destruction, he first gives as 466 years, which he later “corrected” to 470.33 Of the seventy years, which Josephus first reckons from the destruction of the temple to the return of the Jewish exiles in the first year of Cyrus, Whiston says that “it is certainly Josephus’ own calculation,” and that the 50 years for this period given in Against Apion I, 21, “may probably be his own correction in his old age.”34 If this is the case, Josephus might even be quoted as an argument against the application of the seventy years made by the Watch Tower Society. In any case, it seems obvious that his statements on the seventy years cannot be used as an argument against Berossus in the way the Society does. Josephus’ last figure for the length of the desolation period is in complete agreement with Berossus’ chronology, and Josephus even emphasizes this agreement!35 In addition to Josephus, the Watch Tower Society also refers to Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote a defense of Christianity towards the end of the second century C.E. As the Society points out, he commenced the seventy years with the destruction of the temple.36 But the Watch Tower writers conceal the fact that Theophilus was confused about the end of the period , as he first places this in the “second year” of Cyrus (537/36 B.C.E.) and then in the “second year . . . of Darius” (520/19 B.C.E.).37 Some other early writers, including Theophilus’ contemporary, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 C.E.), also ended the seventy

31 Josephus’ Complete Works, translated by William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978), pp. 678–708. Whiston’s translation was originally published in 1737. 32 1bid., p. 684, § 14. 33 Ibid., p. 686, § 19. 34 Ibid., pp. 688, 689, § 23. 35 Against Apion I, 20–21. 36 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” p.188. 37 On Theophilus’ application of the seventy years, see A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1979), p. 119. Theophilus probably based his terminal date of the seventy years on Ezra 4:24, confusing Darius Hystaspes with “Darius the Mede” of Daniel 5:31 and 9:1–2. Attempts to Overcome the Evidence 301 years “in the second year of Darius Hystaspes” (520/19 B.C.E.), which would place the desolation of Jerusalem about 590/89 B.C.E.38 Eusebius in his chronicle (published c. 303 C.E.) adopted Clement’s view, but also tries another application, starting with the year in which Jeremiah began his activity, forty years prior to the desolation of Jerusalem, and he ends the seventy years in the first year of Cyrus, which he sets at c. 560 B.C.E. Julius Africanus, in c. 221 C.E., applies the seventy years to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, the end of which he, like Eusebius later, erroneously dates to c. 560 B.C.E. It is very obvious that these early Christian writers did not have access to sources that could have helped them to establish an exact chronology for this ancient period. The Watch Tower Society’s use of ancient writers then, is demonstrably very selective. They quote Josephus on the seventy years of desolation, at the same time concealing the fact that he finally gives fifty years for the period. Their reference to Theophilus reflects the same methods: He is quoted, not because he really presents evidence that supports them, but because his calculation to some extent agrees with theirs. Other contemporary Christian writers, whose calculations differ from theirs, are ignored. This procedure is a clear misrepresentation of the full body of evidence from the various ancient writers who discussed the matter at hand.

Last edited by hperez on Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

AS I mentioned, it's OK if the text actually does read "50" instead" of "70". I read through your references and as far as the information that touches on the issue at hand, I didn't see where it would contradict the notion that the 50 years was in reference to the obscurity of the temple and not the entire time that he said it remained a "desert". Maybe I missed that and you can point that out to me.

A much more reasonable and harmonious approach is to see the 50 year reference as speaking to the time that the temple laid in obscurity or "without a trace" according to Barclay's rendition.

I would hope that I could dialogue with you personally rather than have to read enormous quotes from a book. Plus, you didn't provide documentation for the quotes so I have no way of checking what was actually said.

So I would like to ask YOU, and please answer personally, why can't the explanation given about the 50 years referring to obscurity not be an accurate way to look at it? What exactly would contradict that view? What did you see in all that you quoted that would disprove that understanding of what was said?

Which quote was it that I did not give the proper documentation? The previous article is found in the book "The Gentiles times Reconsidered, chronology of Christ's return" by Carl Olof Johnson page 295-298.

So, it could be viewed this way: First it is laid desolate, and then it lays in obscurity for fifty years. This leaves open the possibility that initially the ruins were visible to those who would pass by but after 20 years of further decay, erosion and plant growth, the temple was obscure for the remaining 50 years of the total desolation. This would make Josephus completely harmonious throughout his references and that stands as a more reasonable approach to the discrepancy, if there was indeed a real discrepancy to begin with.

With all my respect, but that is just not logical at all at least for me. Josephus was using Berossus chart which clearly shows it was 50 years from the destruction trough 539/538 BCE, why would he misrepresent what Berossus clearly shows after using his data and claiming it was accurate? Berossus show it was 50 years and not 70, so it would be inconsistent for Josephus to have used him as an accurate source and then say totally the opposite. If you are asking documentation in which Josephus lay out Berossus account and shows his agreement you can read "Against Apion" all through 1: 19-21.

"The gentiles times reconsidered" page 98: The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings according to Berossus:Nabopolasar 21 years 625-605 BCENebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562Awel-Marduck 2 years 561-560Neriglissar 4 years 559-556Labashi-Marduck 9 Months 556Nabonidus 17 Years 555-539

The above sequence is quoted by Josephus in "Against Apion" 1:19-21 and found accurate. If Nabuchadnezzar first year was 605/604 then it follows that 18 years later when he destroyed the temple was 587/586 BCE.

So, why did Josephus changed the date?

The following shows that Josephus attempted to correct his earlier figures including his previous comments concerning the desolation of the Temple period:

Josephus’ complete works (pages 678-708) In this careful study Whiston points out that often in the later parts of his works, Josephus attempted to correct his earlier figures. Thus he demonstrates that Josephus first gives the length of the period from the Exodus to the building of the temple as 592 years, which figure he later changed to 612.32 The next period, from the building of the temple to its destruction, he first gives as 466 years, which he later “corrected” to 470.33 Of the seventy years, which Josephus first reckons from the destruction of the temple to the return of the Jewish exiles in the first year of Cyrus, Whiston says that “it is certainly Josephus’ own calculation,” and that the 50 years for this period given in Against Apion I, 21, “may probably be his own correction in his old age.” After looking at all the above information I have shared Josephus should be quoted as an argument against the application of the seventy years made by the Watch Tower Society. In any case, it seems obvious that his statements on the seventy years cannot be used as an argument against Berossus in the way the Society does.Josephus’ last figure for the length of the desolation period is in complete agreement with Berossus’ chronology, and Josephus even emphasizes this agreement and the correctness of Berossus information that it was 50 years not 70.hperez Posts: 5Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:16 a

I can understand that someone can be confused by previous statements he had made, but as the writing of Josephus show he made changes to others dates and comments he had previously made in his earlier writings when he found better sources. His writing in the book of Apion were written after the Book of Antiquities, so It is clear that he corrects his previous comments. It should be observed that Josephus’ statement about the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus’ figures are “both correct and in accordance with our books.” Thus the context, too, requires the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21.The Watchtower uses Josephus comments to their advantage even if it is not the best or most accurate source, but decides to dismiss thousand of more accurate sources and even when they quote him they misinterpret his words. The way I understand Josephus comments is clearly in the context that Judea and the nations will have to serve Babylon for the interval of 70 years not just Judea, since the Prophecy was not talking about just Judea. There is no contradiction in saying that "during that interval" the nations and the temple would be destroyed and serve Babylon for 70 years. That actually happened there is no contradiction. The problem is not if I feel there is no contradiction the problem for your view is the incredible amount of data that simply says the opposite.

As I said before, It is inconsistent, to say the least, to argue that the seventy years of desolation foretold for the nation of Israel and Jerusalem, started precisely seventy years before their release from Babylonian captivity, when we don't apply that same measurement to the other nations who were under the same seventy year judgment. Or is there anyone who might argue that they were all laid waste in the same year, namely 607 B.C.E., and then released upon the fall of Babylon seventy years later? The other problem is that the Bible clearly shows the 70 year period ended in 539 BCE when he judged Babylon not two years later.

Now, regarding the comments in paragraph 19 versus 21:

"I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories; which records have a great agreement with our books in other things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say ... This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation [Babylon], gives us a history of ... Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaideans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means , he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyms king of Persia ."( Apion, I.:19;)

"These accounts agree with true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years;[/b] but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (Apion, I.:21)

It cannot be harmonious to accept your understanding of what Josephus said when it contradicts better sources and to a certain extent himself.I don't think Josephus corrected any comment from paragraph 19 to paragraph 21 at all it is very consistent. The comment in paragraph 19 does not say that the interval from the time the Temple was destroyed through the destruction of Babylon was 70 years as he had previously stated, but that the temple was destroyed "during the interval" it shows the interval of 70 years for Babylon was in progress when the Temple was destroyed. It shows the destruction of the Temple was not to be the start of that period, but that "during" the 70 years "For Babylon" at some time the Temple was destroyed. He might have corrected himself from previous comments, but not from that one at all. But, as my previous article shows he corrected himself in latter writings from other mistakes he had made, so this clearly shows he corrected his previous wrong comments in regards to the 70 years applying directly to the Temple laying desolate. And again, It should be observed that Josephus’ statement about the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus’ figures are “both correct and in accordance with our books.” Thus the context, too, requires the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21.

Actually, Josephus said "he laid desolate" referring to the Temple ?Who did? Just the passing of time, I don't think time is a "HE", so it is a direct reference to the king of Babylon.

Last edited by hperez on Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:09 am, edited 28 times in total.

"I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories; which records have a great agreement with our books in other things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say ... This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation [Babylon], gives us a history of ... Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaideans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means , he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyms king of Persia ."( Apion, I.:19;)

If I were to say the following concerning let’s say the last Century (100 Year period)

“When it so happened that Hiroshima was desolate during the interval of 100 years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia”

Am I saying that the destruction of Hiroshima signal the beginning of that period? Of course not, then if I three paragraph later make it even more clear by expanding not contradicting my previous comment:

"These accounts agree with true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid Hiroshima desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years;[/b] but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (Apion, I.:21)

Clearly, I am saying that the destruction of Hiroshima occurred fifty years into the interval of the 100 years.

I can understand that someone can be confused by previous statements he had made, but as the writing of Josephus show he made changes to others dates and comments he had previously made in his earlier writings when he found better sources. His writing in the book of Apion were written after the Book of Antiquities, so It is clear that he corrects his previous comments. It should be observed that Josephus’ statement about the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus’ figures are “both correct and in accordance with our books.” Thus the context, too, requires the “fifty years” at Against Apion I, 21.

The most accurate sources show Josephus said 50 years regardless of what Mr. Barclay says. The interpretation that you call the "much more reasonable and harmonious approach" of what Josephus said, it would actually be unnatural and contradictory, since it contradicts the context and his own words.

Last edited by hperez on Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:04 am, edited 4 times in total.

Here are the exact quotation (for the benefit of those that do not have the book) of Berosus by Josephus in “Against Apion” 19-2119. (128) I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories; which records have a great agreement with our books in other things also. (129) Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned,20.

(142) This is what Berosus relates concerning the forementioned king, as he relates many other things about him also in the third book of Chaldean History; wherein he complains of the Grecian writers for supposing, without any foundation, that Babylon was built by Semiramis,{o}{The great improvements that Nebuchadnezzar made in the buildings at Babylon, do no way contradict those ancient and authentic testimonies which ascribe its first building to Nimrod, and its first rebuilding to Semiramis, as Berosus seems here to suppose.} queen of Assyria, and for her false pretense to those wonderful edifices thereto relating, as if they were her own workmanship, (143) as indeed in these affairs the Chaldean History cannot but be the most credible. Moreover, we meet with a confirmation of what Berosus says, in the archives of the Phoenicians, concerning this king Nabuchodonosor, that he conquered all Syria and Phoenicia; (144) in which case Philostratus agrees with the others in that history which he composed, where he mentions the siege of Tyre; as does Megasthenes also, in the fourth book of his Indian History, wherein he pretends to prove that the forementioned king of the Babylonians was superior to Hercules in strength and the greatness of his exploits; for he says that he conquered a great part of Libya, and conquered Iberia also. (145) Now, as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds farther upon that head; (146) for thus he says in his third book:—“Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evil-merodach obtained the kingdom. (147) He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister’s husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; (148) his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine months; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. (149) After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; (150) but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. (151) When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met with his forces, and joining battle with him, was beaten; and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. (152) Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; (153) but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died.” 21. (154) These accounts agree with the true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign,{p}{This number in Josephus, that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign, is a mistake in the nicety of chronology; for it was in the nineteenth.} laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second

If Nabuchadnezzar first year was 605/604 then it follows that 18 years later when he destroyed the temple was 587/586 BCE.

Why would we have any doubt that Josephus meant 50 years, he had just agreed with Berosus timeline which clearly shows it was 50 years. Berosus’s comments have more weight then Josephus, since he was that much closer to the actual events. I respect an individual been confused as I have been many times, but an organization with so much resources having this type of scholarship? It is a deception. I would love to tackle other aspects of this prophecy whenever you are ready Mr. Rotherham. I greatly, appreciate you giving me the chance to express my thoughts on this topic. I am not a great writer, English is my second language, but I try to do the best I can to convey my thoughts and facts in a logical manner. If you still think it should read 70 years, I would love to hear your thoughts or we can move to another topic. I think I have established that the Watchtower has not been honest, that been the case I believe that then we have the responsibility to put to the test anything that they say. It is actually, what the Bible asks us to do to test anything.

Sorry for the delay. I was not available Saturday thru Monday to get online as I was upgrading my home computers, which by the way, was a real pain in the patushki.

Anyway, I have read through your arguments concerning Josephus and understand your points. I will look through all of these references in detail and get back with you about this probably yet today or tomorrow.

One question: Where is the quote found in the WT literature that you refer to?

I am seeing that although Josephus says that Berossus' facts and figures agree with their histories, I am wondering as to how much detail he means, because there appears to be discrepancies that don't match and would conflict with the true picture of events.

For instance, Josephus says the following about Berossus':

"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."

This says that this FULL removal of the Israelites from the land happened when Nebuchadnezzar also came against Egypt, which isn't the way history relates it at all. It was not at the same time that he came against Egypt that he also set the Jerusalem temple on fire and made a complete removal of the people from the land, so how does that possibly agree with the true history that Josephus refers to? If Josephus quotes Berossus accurately, then this means that Nebuchadnezzar would have destroyed the temple circa his first year as king. The way this reads the desolation would have begun sometime circa 605 BCE when he went against Egypt at the command of his father Nabopolassar. How can that be in complete agreement with their books? Or ours?

Either this "book agreement" is a very "loose" agreement, just in relation to events, or Josephus is highly confused as to how these events transpired. Josephus is likely looking for corroboration to their own histories by other ancient history from other nations, but is not evidently concerned with all the details, especially timing, or he would not agree to such a huge discrepancy as this. He could be referring to the events as being in agreement with the histories without referring to the years given, because the years that would line up with the way Berossus lays it out simply would not match with their books, unless I am misunderstanding what is said.

Therefore, I still believe that we can see the "fifty" year remark as a reference to the actual "obscurity" of the temple and not the actual length of its destruction. The overgrowth and erosion, etc. could easily come to cause the ruins to become out of sight by the passersby.

Since there is no doubt that Josephus once believed that the entire "desertion" of the land was 70 years, with the considerations above, there is no reason to think that he is changing this without any warning or word to the wise to correct his earlier beliefs. He clearly was not adhering strictly to what Berossus said because he did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple at the same time that he defeated Egypt circa 605 BCE. The EVENTS match which is generally considered a good corroboration of ancient events between nations, but the timing clearly didn't.

Now unless you can clear that mystery up another way, I have no reason to believe that the WT was attempting a deception as to the words of Josephus.

ADDITION: I also notice that Barclay's version of what is said does not allow for the "DURING" argument that you offered earlier. Notice what the meaning of the passage is revealed to be by his rendition of Josephus.

"and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar]437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled;438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 [b]with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus[/b], the first king of the Persians.441"

Since Whiston's version is ambiguous with the "during" rendition, it could be part of or all of the interval of seventy years, Barclay clears up the meaning for us showing that Josephus, as late as chapter 19 in book 1, just two paragraphs before the FIFTY reference, STILL believed that the city was DESERTED fro SEVENTY years. This adds more weight to what I am saying and increases the mystery as to why he would change to fifty without any explanation as to why. I believe he was clearly referring to the "obscure" condition lasting fifty years, not the entire deserted state of seventy years as attested throughout the rest of his writings,

Your comment “Since there is no doubt that Josephus once believed that the entire "desertion" of the land was 70 years, with the considerations above, there is no reason to think that he is changing this without any warning or word to the wise to correct his earlier belief”

I appreciate your response. It is to be noted that in Josephus other corrections he did not give any warning or word to the wise, so I don’t see the need to apply a different rule here. It is us that is demanding an explanation, but he was a Historian and was concerned about the accuracy not about what the learned wanted to hear.

In regards to the following statement that you quoted from Josephus:

"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt,( I don’t think Josephus wanted to list 18 years of history between these two events, he was giving a sequence of events not exact timeline, but you chose to ignore the real timeline he quotes from Berosus) and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia”.

Your comments simply ignore paragraph 20 as if it did not exist. In your mind you are imposing upon the text what you want to see and then ignore real facts(numbers) the ones that Berosus gave. Josephus comments were not in a vacuum as you want to make them he was quoting another historian and one with greater weight then he was. But, I think Josephus says "UPON HIS BEIGN INFORMED THAT THEY HAD REVOLTED", uhg was that right after he destroyed Egypt? Nope, so why confuse the matter? Josephus do give a qualitative statement as to the When the Temple was destroyed, a statement that separates it from the war against Egypt. He does not say both happen at the same time, you read that into the text to justify the unjustifiable.

One thing I love are numbers(I am an Engineer so with all the mistakes I make in grammar I hope I can understand numbers) as words can be twisted to mean different things. The timeline of Kings and the years they ruled cannot be changed thank God otherwise we would be changing those too. I am sure Josephus knew better than us what Berossus meant as I am sure he could add the numbers. Berossus numbers clearly show it was 50 years from the 18 years of Nabuchodosor through the destruction of Babylon.

In regards to Josephus words that you quoted “"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."

As far as I understand according to the Insight of the Scriptures the Watchtower puts the battle of Carquemis in the year 625 BCE, so are you implying that Josephus and Berossus are saying that Jerusalem was destroyed on 625 BCE right after the battle of Carquemis? I am sure you don’t agree with that, because not even the Watchtower believes that notion. And When we look at the timeline Berossus gives us which Josephus could read we find that the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18 years of Nabuchonosor's reign he destroyed the Temple which was 587/586 BCE. I don't think I Josephus was that Stupid and we are that much smarter or for that matter smarter then Berossus.

I don’t see the previous statement as solid as the timeline that Josephus quotes from Berossus on paragraph 20, but even then it does not say what you are implying. I will put more weight on a sequence of numbers, because numbers cannot be twisted. Josephus is not contradicting Berossus timeline, the king of Babylon did sent his son Against Egypt, he also send him against Jerusalem but when did this happened? This was after they REVOLTED FROM HIM. Did both things happened at the same time? No, Egypt was destroyed first and years later after Jerusalem did not want to continue in servitude of Babylon and after not listening to the Prophect of Jehovah’s warning not to REVOLT they were destroyed. The two happened in sequence, but not at the same time . The bigger question is does Josephus says it happened right after the other? NO, NO, NO, All the Watchtower has in their arsenal is planting the seed of doubt, but not solid fact is behind their strategy.

In reality that argument is NULL AND VOID it is just grasping for air, not even the Watchtower believes that Jerusalem was destroyed right after the battle of Carquemis( they have the battle of Carquemis on 625 BCE and the destruction of Jerusalem 607 BCE), so I don’t see any contradiction. Such interpretation actually contradicts the Watchtower timeline of events. Either way, Berossus is a much more reliable source then Josephus and his timeline is clear the 18 year of rule by Nabuchonosor was 587/586 BCE in which year the Temple was destroyed. I believe Josephus knew what he was saying there is no contradiction.

You also said the following “This says that this FULL removal of the Israelites from the land happened when Nebuchadnezzar also came against Egypt, which isn't the way history relates it at all. It was not at the same time that he came against Egypt that he also set the Jerusalem temple on fire and made a complete removal of the people from the land,” I agree with you it was not at the same time. Again, if that is what Josephus meant then it would contradict the Watchtower own timeline and what I believe and history, but he did not say that at all. Egypt was destroyed first and then Jerusalem WHEN JERUSALEM REVOLTED not before not right after the battle of Carquemis. The only contradiction is only with your view, but not in context of what he said after or what he quoted Berosus as saying. In all his words in the Book "Against Apion" you cannot find a contradiction. On the other side , Your view (that paragraph 21 does not mean 50 years from the destruction of the Temple through the destruction of Babylon) does contradicts not only the comments made by Josephus on paragraph 21 in light of the text, but the comments from a much greater source Berossus and a lot more sources. So, when you say "This says" no it does not at all again you have to impose the Watchtower(planting of doubt, since you have no other recourse) view on what he said and then ignore paragraph 20 like is does not exist. So, now the Watchtower has more validity then Berossu's timeline?

You also commented “The way this reads the desolation would have begun sometime circa 605 BCE when he went against Egypt at the command of his father Nabopolassar. How can that be in complete agreement with their books? Or ours?”. It cannot, because that is not what he is saying that is what you are implying that he is saying. Berossus timeline is clear as I have listed before and it is in agreements with History, Archeology, the Bible, Astronomy data. Can you proof the timeline exposed by Berossus is wrong? Lets, put words aside. Now, the Watchtower timelines matches with NONE, not with their books or our books, not with History, nor Arqueology, nor with Astronomical data, Nor with any facts. Actually, neither with the parallel history of the Egyptians kings.

One final comment you said " This adds more weight to what I am saying and increases the mystery as to why he would change to fifty without any explanation as to why. I believe he was clearly referring to the "obscure" condition lasting fifty years, not the entire deserted state of seventy years as attested throughout the rest of his writings"

Are you really serious mystery? He just finished quoting Berossus timeline which shows 50 years from Nabochonosor 18 years of reign through the Destruction of Babylon why in the world would he meant anything different. Was he retarded to quote a timeline like the one Berossus shows and say it is accurate and then contradict it in the next paragraph? You call been consistent with the context a mystery? I call a mystery why the Watchtower chooses to give a blindside to all the facts instead of doing the honorable thing that even a man like Josephus was able to do, when he found he was wrong he did not make excuses, but accepted his mistakes and corrected them.

I truly think Berossu knew what he was saying way better then the Watchtower 2500 hundreds years later don’t you think. And what a coincidence he is in accordance with everything else, but the Watchtower interpretation and yours.

One last comment, since you think Mr. Barclay is the last word maybe you would like to know what he said about the watchtower rendition of John 1:1, but that is a different topic.

Just as an aide, I am familiar with Mr. Barclay's criticism of the WT, but as you mention, that is certainly not related to this discussion. I think the fewer sidebars that are inserted the better.

Now, let's return to your response. My comments will be inserted between the #############.

You started: [quote="hperez"]Your comment “Since there is no doubt that Josephus once believed that the entire "desertion" of the land was 70 years, with the considerations above, there is no reason to think that he is changing this without any warning or word to the wise to correct his earlier belief”

I appreciate your response. It is to be noted that in Josephus other corrections he did not give any warning or word to the wise, so I don’t see the need to apply a different rule here. It is us that is demanding an explanation, but he was a Historian and was concerned about the accuracy not about what the learned wanted to hear.

###############################That of course is an opinion. It is just as likely as I will explain, that Josephus did not think he was actually changing anything from 70 to 50. Plus, can it be said that the changes he made in the other places were just two short chapters apart? That, in my opinion, increases the likelihood that he wasn't really changing anything but speaking about a different aspect of the same time period. ###############################

In regards to the following statement that you quoted from Josephus:

"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt,( I don’t think Josephus wanted to list 18 years of history between these two events, he was giving a sequence of events not exact timeline, but you chose to ignore the real timeline he quotes from Berosus) and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia”.

Your comments simply ignore paragraph 20 as if it did not exist. In your mind you are imposing upon the text what you want to see and then ignore real facts(numbers) the ones that Berosus gave. Josephus comments were not in a vacuum as you want to make them he was quoting another historian and one with greater weight then he was. But, I think Josephus says "UPON HIS BEIGN INFORMED THAT THEY HAD REVOLTED", uhg was that right after he destroyed Egypt? Nope, so why confuse the matter? Josephus do give a qualitative statement as to the When the Temple was destroyed, a statement that separates it from the war against Egypt. He does not say both happen at the same time, you read that into the text to justify the unjustifiable.

##############################################I believe it is you who are reading into the text what you want to see here. Berossus' account is not accurate because even commentators have noted this problem:

Notice what Barclay states about this issue: (interspersed between the words of Josephus in the section under current scrutiny.) My words are also interspersed. I will label each section to keep it all straight.

Josephus131Then, listing Noah’s descendants and adding their dates,434 he comes to Naboupolassaros,435 the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans,436

BarclayA-434 This suggests that Josephus knew Berosus’ dating scheme, which we know from elsewhere ( FGH 680, frag. 5a) as including 86 kings between the flood and the Medes’ capture of Babylonia, all named and with reign-dates totalling 33,091 years. Josephus knew Berosus’ age-figures were enormous ( Ant. 1.106-7) and may have considered them too incredible to cite. The result is that he gives no indication of where to place the following historical events in a wider chronological framework; it is only later that he will connect Babylonian history to a widely known figure, Cyrus. For the moment, by simply juxtaposing Nabopalasaros with Noah, he leaves the impression of great antiquity. Following his own reckoning ( Ant. 1.82-88), he is jumping here about 1,600 years.

RotherhamThis proves that Josephus was not in harmony with the figures of Berossus and was merely using Berossus as a corroboration of EVENTS, not the TIMING of these events. Otherwise, you would have a huge problem with the timeline of Berossus.

Josephus132and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar]437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled;438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians.441

Barclay440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

RotherhamThis shows that even Barclay recognized that Josephus was attempting to match up with Berossus account which condensed all the captivities into a single event. This once again proves that Josephus was more interested in the corroboration of events, not the corroboration of the numbers involved because the captives were not taken in a single event, which is evidently how Berossus presented it. Another mismatch with true history when it comes to Berossus according to Barclay's commentary.

Josephus:133He says that the Babylonian442 conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia and Arabia, surpassing in his exploits all who had previously ruled over the Chaldeans and Babylonians.443

134444 I shall present Berosus’ own words, which go like this:445

135When his father Naboupolassaros446 heard that the satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had rebelled,447 since he was no longer able to endure the hardships himself, he appointed his son Naboukodrosoros, who was still in his prime,448 over some parts of his army, and sent him out against him.449

Barclay:447 In fact there was no “satrap” (a Persian term) over these territories, which were ruled independently by Necho II of Egypt (609 – 594 BCE). Berosus presents a clash between two rival powers as a rebellion by an appointed subordinate. It is curious that the names of key people and battle-sites (1.136) are not mentioned: it is possible that they were omitted in Polyhistor’s abbreviation of this source, or that Josephus has strategically cut them out. On what Berosus might have meant by Coele-Syria (including Judea?), see Stern 1.14; Labow 2005: 138, n.54.

RotherhamThis demonstrates that Brossus words have been filtered through Polyhistor and may not contain everything, Josephus strategically leaving out things. It shows the possibility of corruption in other places.

Josephus:136Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle,450 and brought the district again under their rule.451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years.452

137When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district,453 and appointed some of the Friends454 to take charge of the captives – Judeans,455 Phoenicians, Syrians, peoples bordering Egypt456– and to convey them to Babylon, together with the heavily-armed troops457 and the rest of the spoils, he himself rushed ahead with a small escort and got to Babylon across the desert.

Barclay:453 The Greek ( τὰ κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον πράγματα) could be translated “the affairs concerning Egypt”; if Berosus suggests that Nebuchadnezzar got to control Egypt, the claim is wholly unhistorical. The context here, the brief interval after Carchemish and before Nebucahdnezzar’s enthronement, suggests that Berosus is referring only to events in 605 BCE (see Gutschmid 496-97). If so, the captives mentioned in this section, including the Judeans, would be prisoners captured from Necho’s army at Carchemish or other garrisons (cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 291, n.956), not the result of the extensive, but rather later, campaigns in Syria and Phoenicia. It is uncertain whether Berosus returned at a later point in his narrative (after his account of the rebuilding of Babylon) to the eastern campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar, including his eventual sack of Jerusalem (587 BCE). But if so, Josephus does not know that part of his work, and he has to make do with the one, passing, reference to “Judeans” to which he has access. Although he knows that the destruction of the temple did not take place until the 18th year of Nebucahdnezzar’s reign (1.154), his reference to that event both before (1.132) and after (1.145) this citation encourages readers to hear in this reference to Judeans and their settlement in Babylon (1.137-38) an allusion to the Babylonian conquest of Judea and Jerusalem. He had related the successive stages of subjugation of Judea in Ant. 10.84-150, closely following the biblical account. He cannot find in Berosus the justification to repeat any of that narrative here.

455 The relative insignificance of these captives is indicated by their mention in a subordinate clause (the main verb comes only at the end of the section). For Josephus, this whole segment of his work hinges on the mention of Judeans in this list of captives within this subordinate clause. Since Judea is not explicitly mentioned in the list of territories in 1.135, and since the presence of “Judeans” here is essential for Josephus’ whole argument, it has been suggested (e.g., by J. Lewy) that Josephus himself has introduced the name into Berosus’ text. Reinach’s counter-arguments (27, n.3) are not very strong, and we have reason to suspect that Josephus does sometimes tamper with his sources (see, e.g., at 1.82, 84). Eusebius’ inclusion of this reference ( Chron. 22.18) is not independent of Josephus ( pace Reinach), and the slightly clumsy Greek ( τε καὶ ... καὶ ...) might betray the hand of Josephus. The question must remain open, but even if we trust Josephus at this point, the contrast between his perspective and the political interests of his source is striking.

Rotherham This shows that Josephus or at least SOMEONE was willing to alter the text which calls into question the validity of many things here stated. It also shows that Josephus was very selective in his references to avoid conflict between the accounts.

This statement here:

(When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district,)

shows another condensing of events by Berossus because the "settling" of the rest of the district would have included Judea and it was said to have happened NOT LONG after the death of Neb's father. Again, an historical inaccuracy. See Barclay’s agreement below.

Josephus147His regime was lawless and debauched,488 and when a plot was laid by his sister’s husband, Neriglisaros,489 he was assassinated, having reigned for 2 years.490 After his assassination, Neriglisaros, who plotted against him, succeeded to the throne and reigned for 4 years.491

Barclay:488Berosus’ moral tone justifies the change of regime; his pride in the Babylonian kingdom does not mean whitewashing all its rulers. In Ant. 10.229-31 Josephus had followed the biblical story (2 Kgs 25:27-30 = Jer 52:31-34) in recording this king’s kindness to “Jechonias”; he also attributed to him there an 18-year reign (see Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 294, n.987). Here Josephus seems unable, or at least unwilling, to reconcile Berosus’ account with that of his scriptures.

RotherhamTo claim Josephus was somehow in lockstep agreement with Berossus is most certainly flawed. Again, this stresses the fact that Josephus was more interested in corroborating EVENTS rather than actual timelines and that Berossus timing was skewed.

Josephus:154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books;504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign505 and it was left without trace for 50 years,506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid,507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.508

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

RotherhamThis demonstrtaes that even Barclay recognized the fact that Berossus had the timing of this event as wrong. He specifically claims that Berossus' words put this event at the BEGINNING of Neb's reign, and that is simply not correct. Josephus couldn’t possibly be agreeing with the timeline.

Therefore, this demonstrates my point beyond any reasonable doubt that Josephus was NOT relying on the numbers of Berossus but was relying on his corroboration of events. Berossus' timing was completely off.###################################################

In regards to Josephus words that you quoted “"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."

As far as I understand according to the Insight of the Scriptures the Watchtower puts the battle of Carquemis in the year 625 BCE, so are you implying that Josephus and Berossus are saying that Jerusalem was destroyed on 625 BCE right after the battle of Carquemis? I am sure you don’t agree with that, because not even the Watchtower believes that notion. And When we look at the timeline Berossus gives us which Josephus could read we find that the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18 years of Nabuchonosor's reign he destroyed the Temple which was 587/586 BCE. I don't think I Josephus was that Stupid and we are that much smarter or for that matter smarter then Berossus.

#######################################I have already demonstrated that Barclay was convinced that Berossus' timeline was skewed. If you take the words at face value, that's exactly what it sounds like and Barclay was convinced of it himself. Josephus was not looking for timeline corroboration, if so, he would have to agree with Berossus about the years between the flood and Babylonian conquest being highly inflated and he would have to agree that Jerusalm was depopulated in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

And once again, this is confirmed by Josephus own words just two paragraphs prior that the city was DESERTED FOR SEVENTY YEARS. Therefore, the 50 year reference is most likely not a correction but refers to something else, its obscurity for 50 years.###################################

I don’t see the previous statement as solid as the timeline that Josephus quotes from Berossus on paragraph 20, but even then it does not say what you are implying. I will put more weight on a sequence of numbers, because numbers cannot be twisted. Josephus is not contradicting Berossus timeline, the king of Babylon did sent his son Against Egypt, he also send him against Jerusalem but when did this happened? This was after they REVOLTED FROM HIM. Did both things happened at the same time? No, Egypt was destroyed first and years later after Jerusalem did not want to continue in servitude of Babylon and after not listening to the Prophect of Jehovah’s warning not to REVOLT they were destroyed. The two happened in sequence, but not at the same time . The bigger question is does Josephus says it happened right after the other? NO, NO, NO, All the Watchtower has in their arsenal is planting the seed of doubt, but not solid fact is behind their strategy.

#########################################Barclay begs to differ. Berossus did not separate the two events and Josephus let it slide.#########################################

In reality that argument is NULL AND VOID it is just grasping for air, not even the Watchtower believes that Jerusalem was destroyed right after the battle of Carquemis( they have the battle of Carquemis on 625 BCE and the destruction of Jerusalem 607 BCE), so I don’t see any contradiction. Such interpretation actually contradicts the Watchtower timeline of events. Either way, Berossus is a much more reliable source then Josephus and his timeline is clear the 18 year of rule by Nabuchonosor was 587/586 BCE in which year the Temple was destroyed. I believe Josephus knew what he was saying there is no contradiction.

#############################################You mistakenly think that I am agreeing with Berossus. That's not my point at all. The point is that Berosus assigned the fall of Jerusalem to Neb' first year as Barclay confirms. Funny though, if that is true then Berossus gave the destruction period closer to 70 years instead of 50, according to secular chronology and Berossus' timeline, it would have been circa 605 BCE to circa 539 BCE.#############################################

You also said the following “This says that this FULL removal of the Israelites from the land happened when Nebuchadnezzar also came against Egypt, which isn't the way history relates it at all. It was not at the same time that he came against Egypt that he also set the Jerusalem temple on fire and made a complete removal of the people from the land,” I agree with you it was not at the same time. Again, if that is what Josephus meant then it would contradict the Watchtower own timeline and what I believe and history, but he did not say that at all. Egypt was destroyed first and then Jerusalem WHEN JERUSALEM REVOLTED not before not right after the battle of Carquemis. The only contradiction is only with your view, but not in context of what he said after or what he quoted Berosus as saying.

###############################I am not talking about the WT, I am talking about Josephus and Berossus and Barclay's view of what was written and how we should understand it. The way Barclay understands it, Josephus allowed the Berossus account that puts the destruction of Jerusalem at the first year of Neb. This demonstrates my real point that Josephus was not trying to add up years and come to a new figure because he knew that Berossus' timeline was skewed, sometimes drastically. ###############################

In all his words in the Book "Against Apion" you cannot find a contradiction. On the other side , Your view (that paragraph 21 does not mean 50 years from the destruction of the Temple through the destruction of Babylon) does contradicts not only the comments made by Josephus on paragraph 21 in light of the text, but the comments from a much greater source Berossus and a lot more sources. So, when you say "This says" no it does not at all again you have to impose the Watchtower(planting of doubt, since you have no other recourse) view on what he said and then ignore paragraph 20 like is does not exist. So, now the Watchtower has more validity then Berossu's timeline?

##########################################You can't possibly believe that Berossus' timelines would be correct unless you want assign over 30,000 years between the flood and Babylon's fall and if you want to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus had to know that the timeline of Berossus had to be unreliable. All the more reason not to overturn the view expressed in chapter nineteen just two paragraphs later from 70 to 50. Why would he suddenly trust Berossus for these figures when he knew he couldn't trust him for others. It would be a classic example of cherry-picking to say the least. If Jospehus was wanting to stick with Berossus as strictly as you say then he would have assigned the destruction to about 70 years instead of 50, from 605 BCE to 539 BCE. You can't have it both ways. Either Josephus was not trying to change anything to line up with a supposedly correct Berossus timeline, or he was wanting to agree with Berossus and messed up the math, because 50 years would not have been correct either because Berossus believed it would have been closer to 70 if Neb destroyed Jerusalem in his first year. #########################################

You also commented “The way this reads the desolation would have begun sometime circa 605 BCE when he went against Egypt at the command of his father Nabopolassar. How can that be in complete agreement with their books? Or ours?”. It cannot, because that is not what he is saying that is what you are implying that he is saying. Berossus timeline is clear as I have listed before and it is in agreements with History, Archeology, the Bible, Astronomy data. Can you proof the timeline exposed by Berossus is wrong? Lets, put words aside. Now, the Watchtower timelines matches with NONE, not with their books or our books, not with History, nor Arqueology, nor with Astronomical data, Nor with any facts. Actually, neither with the parallel history of the Egyptians kings.

############################################Like I said, you cant possibly believe that Berossus' timeline is accurate unless you are willing to believe what I mentioned above. We will get to the other stuff later once this topic has been concluded and closed.###########################################

One final comment you said " This adds more weight to what I am saying and increases the mystery as to why he would change to fifty without any explanation as to why. I believe he was clearly referring to the "obscure" condition lasting fifty years, not the entire deserted state of seventy years as attested throughout the rest of his writings"

Are you really serious mystery? He just finished quoting Berossus timeline which shows 50 years from Nabochonosor 18 years of reign through the Destruction of Babylon why in the world would he meant anything different. Was he retarded to quote a timeline like the one Berossus shows and say it is accurate and then contradict it in the next paragraph? You call been consistent with the context a mystery? I call a mystery why the Watchtower chooses to give a blindside to all the facts instead of doing the honorable thing that even a man like Josephus was able to do, when he found he was wrong he did not make excuses, but accepted his mistakes and corrected them.

######################################You've made an error. Berossus did not say that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in his 18th year, that was Josephus stating that. All Berossus says is that Neb ruled for 43 years and again, he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's first year, giving the desolation closer to 70 years, according to secular numbers. If Josephus wanted to agree with Berossus he would have used 70 instead of 50 for the complete desolation. The fifty could have been nothing more than an aside mentioning the fact that the temple could not be seen for 50 years with no intention of correcting the timeline.

I think it odd that Josephus would claim agreement with their records with Berossus when he would have had to know that Berossus put the destruction of Jerusalem around the first year of Neb’s reign. There is no way that they could be said to be in agreement UNLESS he was just referring to events rather than years.

Even though it looks like Josephus could have been refiguring the desolation to 50 instead of 70, I have to think because of all the discrepancies that this is not what he was doing at all. He couldn’t agree with Berossus on many things, sometimes just cherry-picking what would fit and glossing over that which would not. So thusfar, I do not see any compelling reason to think that Josephus was making a correction but rather an aside observation about obscurity.

And I suppose as a bottom line, if Josephus truly did change his mind, the WT simply committed an oversight when they did not mention the fifty year reference. It's certainly not the easiest thing to figure out, all things considered. Now, our enemies, such as yourself, love to claim corruption and deception, but we all know that things like this are possibly just overlooked. You can feign shock and surprise at such a thing but then that is just grand-standing. I can assure you, we do not need Josephus to prove our point about 607 BCE.

I never did get that reference from you as to when and where the WT referred to Josephus for corroboration so I really can’t comment too much on that until I see it. It would be interesting to see when that comment was made because there has been some detailed information written on that topic in the last few years and I did not find it there, indicating that if they DID become aware of the problem, they aren’t using that any longer for corroboration. So please, tell me where that’s at.

Since your last response is quite lengthy it will take me longer to respond. I am not too concerned about what Mr. Barclay says, since he was not Josephus or Berossus, plus Berossus is proven correct by History itself. I will try to answer a couple at a time, since it is just the same planting doubt on all the secular proof, because they do not meet your criteria as I will explain.

Mr. Rotherham did you make the following comment? "You mistakenly think that I am agreeing with Berossus. That's not my point at all. The point is that Berosus assigned the fall of Jerusalem to Neb' first year as Barclay confirms.[/size] Funny though, if that is true then Berossus gave the destruction period closer to 70 years instead of 50, according to secular chronology and Berossus' timeline, it would have been circa 605 BCE to circa 539 BCE". LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT BARCLAY CONFIRMS THAT JERUSALEM WAS DESTROYED ON NEBUCHONOSOR FIRST YEAR AND YOU AGREE WITH THAT? I FIND THAT WONDERFUL THAT YOU SIDE WITH HIM INSTEAD OF THE BIBLE THAT CLEARLY SAYS IT WAS ON NEB 18 YEAR. Actually, that would make Berossus putting the destruction period closer to 90 years, since the Watchtower puts the Nab first year as 625 BCE. So, I don't get where you get that from it makes no sense.

So now you are quoting a man that says totally the opposite of what the Bible says? Again, you impose over the text what you want to hear and ignore the very accurate timeline Josephus quotes from Berossus. So, Josephus quotes a man as accurate, wait did he say it was accurate (maybe Mr. Barclay has a more enlightened opinion) and list his timeline of kings as accurate, but he did it because according to you an Barclay he believed him to be inaccurate? Can you show me a quote in which Berossus says that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the first year of Nab reign?

So, you are saying in other words that Mr. Barlay is saying that Berossus timeline puts the destruction of Jerusalem on his first year 605 BCE, which in turn would mean that by 539 BCE would be close to 70 years (which would be true if it happened on Nab first year). The problem is that the Bible and all historical facts show Jerusalem was destroyed on Nabuchanessar 18 year. So, then from 605 BCE (WHICH YOU AGREE IS NAB FIRST YEAR)- 18 years guess what? 587/586 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

1) You quoted “Barclay A-434 This suggests that Josephus knew Berosus’ dating scheme, which we know from elsewhere ( FGH 680, frag. 5a) as including 86 kings between the flood and the Medes’ capture of Babylonia, all named and with reign-dates totalling 33,091 years. Josephus knew Berosus’ age-figures were enormous ( Ant. 1.106-7) and may have considered them too incredible to cite. The result is that he gives no indication of where to place the following historical events in a wider chronological framework; it is only later that he will connect Babylonian history to a widely known figure, Cyrus. For the moment, by simply juxtaposing Nabopalasaros with Noah, he leaves the impression of great antiquity. Following his own reckoning ( Ant. 1.82-88), he is jumping here about 1,600 years.

RotherhamThis proves that Josephus was not in harmony with the figures of Berossus and was merely using Berossus as a corroboration of EVENTS, not the TIMING of these events. Otherwise, you would have a huge problem with the timeline of Berossus.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++My answer: Who is more credible Berossus or the Watchtower timeline? So, Josephus quotes a man as accurate, wait did he say it was accurate (maybe Mr. Barclay has a more enlightened opinion) and list his timeline of kings as accurate, but he did it because according to you an Barclay he believed him to be inaccurate? Ok, I really need time to answer that one. The only thing that shows is that Josephus knew of some figures that were not accurate as we also know today, but does that make the period which Josephus quotes Berossus inaccurate?

DID MR. BARCLAY ALSO INFORMED THE READERS OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION? I MEAN, SINCE HE IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE, HE MOST HAVE RESEARCHED ALL ANGLES BEFORE GIVING A PROFESSIONAL OPINION. ALL THE COMMENTS REGARDING THE INNACURACY OF BEROSSUS FOR THE TIME WE ARE INTERESTED IN ARE WITHOUT BASIS, WHY?

Where did Berossus get his information on the Neo-Babylonian kings? According to his own words he “translated many books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon and which dealt with a period of more than 150,000 years.”9 These “books” included accounts of legendary kings “before the Flood” with very exaggerated lengths of reign. His history of the dynasties after the Flood down to the reign of the Babylonian king Nabonassar (747–734 B.C.E.) is also far from reliable and evidently contained much legendary material and exaggerated lengths of reign.

Berossus himself indicates that it was impossible to give a trustworthy history of Babylonia before Nabonassar, as that king “collected and destroyed the records of the kings before him in order that the list of Chaldaean kings might begin with him.”

Despite these problems, however, for later periods, and especially for the critical Neo-Babylonian period, it has been established that Berossus used the generally very reliable Babylonian chronicles, or sources similar to these documents, and that he carefully reported their content in Greek. The figures he gives for the reign of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

Burstein, for example, says: “The earliest are those made by Josephus in the first century A.D. from the sections concerning the second and particularly the third book of the Babyloniaca, the latter indeed providing our best evidence for Berossus’ treatment of the Neo-Babylonian period.” (Op. cit., pp. 10, 11; emphasis added.) Josephus’ lengthy quotation on the Neo-Babylonian era in Against Apion is best preserved in Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel, Book IX, chapter XL. (See the discussion by H. St. J. Thackeray in Josephus, Vol. I [Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 38:I], London: William Heinemann, and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926, pp. xviii, xix.)

In other words it is true that up to the year 740 BCE even Berossus admitted that it was impossible for him to date previous to 740 BCE with any accuracy, but does this mean that time time we are interested after 740 BCE was not accurate? NOPE, it is very accurate as the following information shows. Can you show me where the Watchtower timing matches any of the following timelines that have been proven to agree with each other at least to the month, but we are missing 20 years with the Watchtower interpretation. What are the odds that they all agree with Berossus and not the Watchtower and you put Berossus on the questionable seat and not the Watchtower? uhg, I wonder why?

The figures he gives for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

Was Berossus more accurate than the Watchotwer? It is not even a comparison. I will continue answering your planting of the seed of doubt, but you have no substantial proof that Berossus was wrong.

You also said "You've made an error. Berossus did not say that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in his 18th year, that was Josephus stating that. All Berossus says is that Neb ruled for 43 years and again, he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's first year, giving the desolation closer to 70 years, according to secular numbers. If Josephus wanted to agree with Berossus he would have used 70 instead of 50 for the complete desolation. The fifty could have been nothing more than an aside mentioning the fact that the temple could not be seen for 50 years with no intention of correcting the timeline.

Does your Bible say it was in his 18 year of rulership? Does it? Oh, I guess you are right he did not say it my mistake, but he did not have to. I am not even going over the Egyptian line of kings from the Saite period which correspond with the timeline we are discussing and it also agrees that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587/586 BCE.

You asked the following "Besides, he is quoting Josephus and Berossus when he makes his commentary. Should I think your observations are somehow superior to his?" Nope, but nowhere is Mr. Barclay dismissing (neither can he) the substantial data from the Babylonian records which show clearly from every aspect pretty much the same timeline that Josephus quoted from Berossus, timeline that shows that the 18 year of Nabuchonossor rule and the date in which the Bible and Historian say he destroyed the Temple was 587/586 BCE. I will direct your readers seeking for the truth to read the previous article that you where so kind to post, also to google the following book which is free in its pdf format "The Gentiles Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Jonsson and then judge for themselves.

My question to you is are you putting the opinion of an Organization that has an agenda (not to lose their power over people based on 1914) above all the Scientific community which disagrees with them and whos opinion is just based on facts and not the search of power?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++YOU MADE THIS COMMENT IN WHICH YOU PUT THE WORM ON THE HOOK AND CAUGHT YOURSELF "You've made an error. Berossus did not say that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in his 18th year, that was Josephus stating that. All Berossus says is that Neb ruled for 43 years and again, he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's first year, giving the desolation closer to 70 years, according to secular numbers. If Josephus wanted to agree with Berossus he would have used 70 instead of 50 for the complete desolation. The fifty could have been nothing more than an aside mentioning the fact that the temple could not be seen for 50 years with no intention of correcting the timeline.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FIRST, BEROSSUS NEVER SAID IT HAPPENED ON NEB FIRST YEAR NO DATING WAS GIVEN. BUT ANOTHER LITTLE BITTY BITTY PROBLEM THE BIBLE SAYS IT WAS NAB 18 YEAR THAT IT HAPPENED NOT NAB FIRST YEAR. THE WATCHTOWER PUTS NABUCHODONOSOR FIRST YEAR AS 625 BCE. IF YOU AND BARCLAY CLAIM THE DESTRUCTION OCCURRED IN NAB FIRST YEAR THAT WILL MAKE ALMOST 90 YEARS BY 539 BCE, SO YOUR OPINION AND MR. BARCLAYS OPINION IS SOOOO WRONG. If all that data including the timeline that Berossus gave which Josephus calls accurate are wrong according to you and the Watchtower? Can you help me find the extra 20 years in between that are missing? Do you have any facts beyond just opinions?

I will continue answering tomorrow as time permits, but what are the odds of all that immense amount of data that to coincide with each other including the dating of Astronomical Eclipses (occurrences) - which cannot be altered? Simply, it is literally astronomically impossible.

Last edited by hperez on Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:07 am, edited 42 times in total.

I do not know why you would want to discount the commentary of Barclay since I would think he would be regarded as a neutral source of information and certainly has qualifications to make observations and commentary based upon the actual original languages. If you can't overturn Barclay's observations and show them wrong, then I fail to see how you can overturn what he has said.

Besides, he is quoting Josephus and Berossus when he makes his commentary. Should I think your observations are somehow superior to his?

I don't have to impose any ideas into what Josephus says. What I can read Josephus says and Berossus have been proven to be true and that is why the entire Scientific community believes that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, which corresponds with the Bible. I don't have to proof anything, it is for you and the Watchtower to be able to disproof that and show that the proof does not exist. The amount of data is so great that only an Organization with an agenda can continue with such a farce. The Watchtower has to admit it the fact that the data does not support them and then they have to run for covers and give their preferred excuse that "they trust more the Bible Chronology then the world", but the truth the Bible Chronology does not support them neither. You are the one that has to impose your views on the text to interpret the 50 years to mean something else then what it says.

I am not sure if you read the Article you posted, but if you still have any doubts that the timeline Berossus gave was accurate in light of the Historical data, Archeological, Astronomical, then it is your burden to show why, not me. You can try to poke doubt, but the fact is that you can show little mistakes here and there, but when you put it all together they all correspond with the Historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE and not 607 BCE. So, who cares? It is up to the Watchtower to show that what they say has any validity whatsoever. Is there any place your preferred source I guess Mr. Barclay agrees with the Watchtower that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE? I think that would be very enlightening.

AGAIN, I WILL ASK WAS BEROSSUS WRONG? DOES BERUSSUS TIMELINE CORRESPONDS WITH A 607 BCE OR A 587 BCE DATE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM? WAS THE WATCHOWER CORRECT OR WAS BEROSSUS TIMELINE CORRECT? IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITISIZE BEROSSUS AS NOT ACCURATE WHEN HE CORRESPONDS WITH EVERGTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUND (GIVEN SOME MINOR DISCREPANCIES) AND AT THE SAME TIME SUPPORT THE WATCHTOWER WHOS TIMELINE CORRESPONDS WITH NONE, UHG NOT SURE WHAT ELSE TO SAY.

"The gentiles times reconsidered" page 98: The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings according to Berossus:Nabopolasar 21 years 625-605 BCENebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562Awel-Marduck 2 years 561-560Neriglissar 4 years 559-556Labashi-Marduck 9 Months 556Nabonidus 17 Years 555-539

You quoted:Barclay440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

RotherhamThis shows that even Barclay recognized that Josephus was attempting to match up with Berossus account which condensed all the captivities into a single event. This once again proves that Josephus was more interested in the corroboration of events, not the corroboration of the numbers involved because the captives were not taken in a single event, which is evidently how Berossus presented it. Another mismatch with true history when it comes to Berossus according to Barclay's commentary.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I simply have to disagree with Mr. Barclay in light of Berossus timeline and history itself it is ridiculous to defend the Watchtower timeline over Berossus. I DO NOT AGREE HE MADE THEM INTO A SINGLE EVENT. IT WAS A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS NOTHING ELSE TO JUMP TO THE SUBJECT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. EITHER WAY BEROSSUS TIMELINE IS ACCURATE WITH HISTORICAL DATA.

You quoted:Barclay:447 In fact there was no “satrap” (a Persian term) over these territories, which were ruled independently by Necho II of Egypt (609 – 594 BCE). Berosus presents a clash between two rival powers as a rebellion by an appointed subordinate. It is curious that the names of key people and battle-sites (1.136) are not mentioned: it is possible that they were omitted in Polyhistor’s abbreviation of this source, or that Josephus has strategically cut them out. On what Berosus might have meant by Coele-Syria (including Judea?), see Stern 1.14; Labow 2005: 138, n.54.

RotherhamThis demonstrates that Brossus words have been filtered through Polyhistor and may not contain everything, Josephus strategically leaving out things. It shows the possibility of corruption in other places.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++In light of all the other sources which corroborate Berossus timeline I don’t see how that opinion is realistic.

I could on forever showing proof after proof of how they all agree, so do I care if the Watchtower chooses to disagree it is meaningless. I will just ask the readers to read the following book and make up their minds on their on "The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's return" by Carl Olof Jonsson. If after reading that book and the article you posted for me they still support your view, then honestly there is nothing I can say beyond the research they have done. Unlike the Watchtower they were not trying to uphold a lie so their power structure would not crumble, actually their personal lives were attacked so they did it for the love of truth. I am not your enemy I am just a lover of truth I don't care where it comes from.

I have read a few of the rest of Mr. Barclays comments and if that is all you have I think he simply ignores the rest of the data as you do, so I will read through it, but I don't see what he sees specially in regards to the quotes we have been taking about.

ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS OF ALTERING OF THE TEXT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVEN IN LIGHT OF THE REAL DATA AND SHOW HOW IT WAS ACTUALLY ALTERED NOT JUST SOME CONVOLUTED OPINION. SO I AM NOT WASTING MY TIME ON IT. Mr. Roherham if your only source is one 20th Century Scholar(ONE YOU DONT EVEN AGREE WITH IN OTHER OPINIONS) and you don't deal with the immense data before Christ, are we really discussing anything here? I will recommend the book I mentioned before If still you think the Watchtower is right, honestly I am not any better. When you show me how Mr. Barclay dismisses the immense data backing Mr. Berossus above the Watchtower then maybe we can be moving into some real debate. I will read the rest of your comments and see if there is anything meaningless for me to address.

You quoted:

Josephus:154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books;504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign505 and it was left without trace for 50 years,506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid,507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.508

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

IS MR. BARCLAY SO INEPT NOT TO KNOW ALL THE DATA THAT ACTUALLY BACKS UP BEROSSUS? UH, LET ME THINK WHO DO I BELIEVE MORE JOSEPHUS/BEROSSUS/KINGS LIST/BUSINESS TABLETS, ETC, ETC, ETC OR MR. BARCLAY WITH ALL HIS SUBSTANTIALLY UNSUBSTANTIAL OPINIONS IT IS ALMOST ABSURD WHEN YOU COMPARE WHAT HE SAYS TO OTHER SCHOLARS. I DONT REALLY HAVE TO KEEP QUOTING DATA, BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY HAVE NONE.

The Watchtower quotes are mainly taken out of the book "Let your Kingdom come". I will give you pages later.

You said "You can't possibly believe that Berossus' timelines would be correct unless you want assign over 30,000 years between the flood and Babylon's fall and if you want to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar". Again, Berossus agreed that before the year 740 BCE he did not have good data, but can you proof that his data was wrong after that? Even better, can you proof that the Watchtower interpretation has better substantial backing for the period we are dealing with mainly 700 BCE - 500 BCE? I don't think so. Its funny your Barclay quote makes fun of Berossus not been very accurate before the year 740 BCE, but I poke fun that the Watchtower has no substantial backing for their 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. If I were to bet on one million dollars, believe me I would have no problem betting on that.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO POCK FUN ON BEROSSUS? BECAUSE YOU MIGHT REGRET THAT ONCE YOU FIND THE WATCHTOWER CLAIMS HAVE WAY LESS BACKING THEN HIM.

I WILL GIVE MR. BARCLAY'S COMMENTS AS MUCH WEIGHT AS YOU GIVE HIM IN HIS COMMENTS REGARDING JOHN 1:1.

I really think that it would be more beneficial to the discussion if you would turn down the hostility that you so often exhibit and not use such inflammatory speech. My desire is not to fight with you but to reason with you. I am trying to have a meaningful discussion with you which in the end I hope to demonstrate that your views of chronology need to be adjusted to fit more with what the Bible says. You keep wanting to run ahead and throw a tremendous amount of information at once and claim that it's all there and it all proves your point. I believe that when examined individually, the evidence will not prove your point, but will rather support our views, so once again, I will ask for your patience and a little respect so that we can methodically work our way through this.

We should apply this Biblical principle should we not? “Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

You said:I don't have to impose any ideas into what Josephus says. What I can read Josephus says and Berossus have been proven to be true and that is why the entire Scientific community believes that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, which corresponds with the Bible. I don't have to proof anything, it is for you and the Watchtower to be able to disproof that and show that the proof does not exist. The amount of data is so great that only an Organization with an agenda can continue with such a farce. [/color] The Watchtower has to admit it the fact that the data does not support them and then they have to run for covers and give their preferred excuse that "they trust more the Bible Chronology then the world", but the truth the Bible Chronology does not support them neither. You are the one that has to impose your views on the text to interpret the 50 years to mean something else then what it says.

#####################################But that's just it. What you claim has been proven has not been proven, as I plan to show in great detail before we are done. Let's try not to run ahead and claim victory prematurely.#####################################

I am not sure if you read the Article you posted, but if you still have any doubts that the timeline Berossus gave was accurate in light of the Historical data, Archeological, Astronomical, then it is your burden to show why, not me. You can try to poke doubt, but the fact is that you can show little mistakes here and there, but when you put it all together they all correspond with the Historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE and not 607 BCE. So, who cares? It is up to the Watchtower to show that what they say has any validity whatsoever. Is there any place your preferred source I guess Mr. Barclay agrees with the Watchtower that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE? I think that would be very enlightening.

######################################I will remind you again that at the moment we are simply discussing the validity and the meaning of the "fifty years" mentioned by Josephus. We are not yet considering the entire "ball of wax" that you and others have touted as proof. So far, we see that it is entirely possible that the fifty years may not be a reference to the entire period of desolation but only a period of obscurity. There is no way to prove either direction from what I have seen and you have produced nothing conclusive in the other direction. Yes, the years given by Berossus for the reigns of the kings Babylon would fit with the current views of chronology, HOWEVER, if we allow secular history to shrink the desolation down to fifty years we have no more for the 40 year desolation of Egypt that was to take place during that time nor do we have time for 70 year down-time for the city of Tyre. But those are things that we will get to in due time, along with all the other pieces of evidence that you offered in your article.

As I have mentioned, I have seen the information in your Article before and dealt with it in the past but you are going to have to be patient in order for all of this to be logically presented, not just for us to see, but for the readers that are following along.###############################################

AGAIN, I WILL ASK WAS BEROSSUS WRONG? DOES BERUSSUS TIMELINE CORRESPONDS WITH A 607 BCE OR A 587 BCE DATE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM? WAS THE WATCHOWER CORRECT OR WAS BEROSSUS TIMELINE CORRECT? IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITISIZE BEROSSUS AS NOT ACCURATE WHEN HE CORRESPONDS WITH EVERGTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUND (GIVEN SOME MINOR DISCREPANCIES) AND AT THE SAME TIME SUPPORT THE WATCHTOWER WHOS TIMELINE CORRESPONDS WITH NONE, UHG NOT SURE WHAT ELSE TO SAY.

####################################################Actually, it will be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the WT timeline is that which lines up primarily with the Bible, and that should take precedent over man's view of chronology which has changed down through the years and may yet change again. But we will get to all of that in due time.

You have to realize that Berossus' information was likely filtered through Polyhistor and is simply a repetition of what 3rd century BCE chronologers came up with in their calculations. If the third century chronologers, the Seluecids, had it wrong, including Berossus, and everyone basically repeated their errors from that time period, then naturally they are going to come up with the same figures that Berossus came up with since he was one of those 3rd century BCE chronologers who helped put the chronological format together at that time.

I will show you that the info contained in the tablets can be looked at in a different way than what you and others are looking at it. Those tablets and BIBLICAL information and time periods will show that the secular view has to be incorrect, but all in due time.##################################################

"The gentiles times reconsidered" page 98: The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings according to Berossus:Nabopolasar 21 years 625-605 BCENebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562Awel-Marduck 2 years 561-560Neriglissar 4 years 559-556Labashi-Marduck 9 Months 556Nabonidus 17 Years 555-539

################################################I understand how the years add up according to Berossus and why secular chronologers think it all fits, but it will be shown in the finality of this that it can't possibly fit once all the Biblical data is considered, and I am not just talking about the 70 year references but other prophetic references involving other nations that had to fit into the time of the desolation of Jerusalem.###############################################

You quoted:Barclay440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

RotherhamThis shows that even Barclay recognized that Josephus was attempting to match up with Berossus account which condensed all the captivities into a single event. This once again proves that Josephus was more interested in the corroboration of events, not the corroboration of the numbers involved because the captives were not taken in a single event, which is evidently how Berossus presented it. Another mismatch with true history when it comes to Berossus according to Barclay's commentary.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I simply have to disagree with Mr. Barclay in light of Berossus timeline and history itself it is ridiculous to defend the Watchtower timeline over Berossus. I DO NOT AGREE HE MADE THEM INTO A SINGLE EVENT. IT WAS A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS NOTHING ELSE TO JUMP TO THE SUBJECT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. EITHER WAY BEROSSUS TIMELINE IS ACCURATE WITH HISTORICAL DATA.

#########################################################You can disagree with Mr. Barclay all you want but he is considered by those in many "theological camps" to be a respected scholar. Surely you don't think he is biased toward US, do you? This simply demonstrates that you can't make any absolute claims about Josephus and Berossus being accurate when it is quite evident that they are not absolute by any means. Do you actually believe Berossus was correct when he puts 30,000 some years between the flood and the fall of Babylon? You call that a MINOR discrepancy? And the way the narrative reads in chapter 19 of Book 1, if you break it down semantically, Josephus defnitely puts the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem as the same event. If you want me to break that sentence down semantically and explain why, I will do so. Just let me know. Again, Barclay, a respected scholar by many, agrees.

Will you still then claim that Berossus is always trustworthy when it comes to numbers? Be careful not to stick your head in the sand when comments don't line up with what you want to believe. I will try and do the same.########################################################

You quoted:Barclay:447 In fact there was no “satrap” (a Persian term) over these territories, which were ruled independently by Necho II of Egypt (609 – 594 BCE). Berosus presents a clash between two rival powers as a rebellion by an appointed subordinate. It is curious that the names of key people and battle-sites (1.136) are not mentioned: it is possible that they were omitted in Polyhistor’s abbreviation of this source, or that Josephus has strategically cut them out. On what Berosus might have meant by Coele-Syria (including Judea?), see Stern 1.14; Labow 2005: 138, n.54.

RotherhamThis demonstrates that Brossus words have been filtered through Polyhistor and may not contain everything, Josephus strategically leaving out things. It shows the possibility of corruption in other places.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++In light of all the other sources which corroborate Berossus timeline I don’t see how that opinion is realistic.

#############################################I understand. However, not all things have yet been analyzed which I claim will show that Berossus timeline is based on inaccurate information because it will be shown to be in conflict with many Biblical prophecies. I believe that the 3rd century BCE chronologists made a 20 year error in their calculations and perpetuated that error through many of the tablets that they made copies of and those same errors are being perpetuated today.###############################################

I have read a few of the rest of Mr. Barclays comments and if that is all you have I think he simply ignores the rest of the data as you do, so I will read through it, but I don't see what he sees specially in regards to the quotes we have been taking about.

#################################################It doesn't matter if you agree Heber, what matters is that Mr. Barclay has shown that these views are certainly in the mix and can not just be dismissed out of hand. They are legitimate views whether you or someone else would accept them or not. That's the point.#################################################

ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS OF ALTERING OF THE TEXT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVEN IN LIGHT OF THE REAL DATA AND SHOW HOW IT WAS ACTUALLY ALTERED NOT JUST SOME CONVOLUTED OPINION. SO I AM NOT WASTING MY TIME ON IT. Mr. Roherham if your only source is one 20th Century Scholar(ONE YOU DONT EVEN AGREE WITH IN OTHER OPINIONS) and you don't deal with the immense data before Christ, are we really discussing anything here? I will recommend the book I mentioned before If still you think the Watchtower is right, honestly I am not any better. When you show me how Mr. Barclay dismisses the immense data backing Mr. Berossus above the Watchtower then maybe we can be moving into some real debate. I will read the rest of your comments and see if there is anything meaningless for me to address.

#################################################I will deal with what you call the IMMENSE DATA BEFORE CHRIST in due time if you will simply show some patience. We will get to it all, I promise. I am not quoting Mr. Barclay as a someone who agrees with us on everything, but I am quoting him as someone who is respected in many camps as a scholar and a highly qualified to make commentary about original languages. You don't have to agree. But it shows I am not forced to see your view of it either.################################################

You quoted:

Josephus:154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books;504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign505 and it was left without trace for 50 years,506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid,507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.508

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

IS MR. BARCLAY SO INEPT NOT TO KNOW ALL THE DATA THAT ACTUALLY BACKS UP BEROSSUS? UH, LET ME THINK WHO DO I BELIEVE MORE JOSEPHUS/BEROSSUS/KINGS LIST/BUSINESS TABLETS, ETC, ETC, ETC OR MR. BARCLAY WITH ALL HIS SUBSTANTIALLY UNSUBSTANTIAL OPINIONS IT IS ALMOST ABSURD WHEN YOU COMPARE WHAT HE SAYS TO OTHER SCHOLARS. I DONT REALLY HAVE TO KEEP QUOTING DATA, BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY HAVE NONE.

##################################################It is entirely premature for you to claim I have no data when I have not even gotten to it yet. We are simply at this time talking about one reference of Josephus and what it actually means. I think I have demonstrated that one can read it as I am reading it, whether you agree or not is hardly the point nor the goal of this conversation. The goal is to show that there is another way to look at these words and your constant appeal to the other data is premature. We will get to it in due time.##############################################

You said "You can't possibly believe that Berossus' timelines would be correct unless you want assign over 30,000 years between the flood and Babylon's fall and if you want to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar". Again, Berossus agreed that before the year 740 BCE he did not have good data, but can you proof that his data was wrong after that?

##############################################The problem is Josephus, after claiming considerable agreement with his books, talks about Berossus account of the flood as if it is accurate. Don't you think that if Josephus was relying heavily on Berossus' dates, he would have mentioned the great discrepancy here? This tells me that Josephus was looking for corroboration in regard to EVENTS, not dates. And where exactly do you find that Berossus admits that his dates are nor good before 740 BCE? I would like to check that out if you don't mind.############################################

Even better, can you proof that the Watchtower interpretation has better substantial backing for the period we are dealing with mainly 700 BCE - 500 BCE? I don't think so. Its funny your Barclay quote makes fun of Berossus not been very accurate before the year 740 BCE, but I poke fun that the Watchtower has no substantial backing for their 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. If I were to bet on one million dollars, believe me I would have no problem betting on that.

###########################################Once everything has been considered I think I can demonstrate that things are not exactly as you think they are and that the WT chronology is Biblically well founded.

In my opinion, I think we have covered your objection about the fifty years as being some supposed deliberate deception by the WT. "Let Your Kingdom Come" is a fairly old book and I have not seen where they appeal to Josephus quote since then.

Worst case scenario for me, it could have been an oversight by them, or the information is not clear enough to warrant a contradiction of Josephus where he elsewhere says it was definitely 70 years. I am not saying you have to agree but I am certainly saying that I do not see where it has to be your way either. I think you call this a draw and maybe it is best to move onto another point. Your choice.

My apologies if I offended you. I will answer tonight in more detail, but one point I would quickly like to make is that Josephus exposed his disagreements when he saw fit, but the statement in which he calls accurate and according to ours books is directly and only related to his exposition of Berossus king list on the last paragraph. Of course, he did not agree with every comment Berossus made. I can disagree with someone and many subjects, but if a quote someone and say that what I quoted was accurate I dont see why people would say I am not saying what I just said. I believe that would extreme arrogance on their part as I believe is the case here. I take Josephus meant what he said and again he was directly refering to the destruction of the temple and not with everything Berosus said about other subjects. The timeline Berossus is accurate just like Josephus described it to be. I think you are imposing your view on what he said because it is not in the text or context.

I trust Josephus when he disagreed and when he agrees I dont have to question it because it does not fit my theology. Unless you can proof Berossus kings list is wrong I dont see why we need to continue this debate. If Betossus king list that Josephus quotes is correct and is corroborated by the babylonian chronicles it really matters little if you agree with Josephus or not.

The question is not was Berossus correct in everything he said the question is was his kinglist correct? If it can be proven accurate in light of other sources it matters litte what anyone wants to say. Unless you can show that Berossus king list is wrong your case is mute.

hperez wrote:My apologies if I offended you. I will answer tonight in more detail, but one point I would quickly like to make is that Josephus exposed his disagreements when he saw fit, but the statement in which he calls accurate and according to ours books is directly and only related to his exposition of Berossus king list on the last paragraph. Of course, he did not agree with every comment Berossus made. I can disagree with someone and many subjects, but if a quote someone and say that what I quoted was accurate I dont see why people would say I am not saying what I just said. I believe that would extreme arrogance on their part as I believe is the case here. I take Josephus meant what he said and again he was directly refering to the destruction of the temple and not with everything Berosus said about other subjects. The timeline Berossus is accurate just like Josephus described it to be. I think you are imposing your view on what he said because it is not in the text or context.

I trust Josephus when he disagreed and when he agrees I dont have to question it because it does not fit my theology. Unless you can proof Berossus kings list is wrong I dont see why we need to continue this debate. If Betossus king list that Josephus quotes is correct and is corroborated by the babylonian chronicles it really matters little if you agree with Josephus or not.

The question is not was Berossus correct in everything he said the question is was his kinglist correct? If it can be proven accurate in light of other sources it matters litte what anyone wants to say. Unless you can show that Berossus king list is wrong your case is mute.

I will address one last comment that Berossus comments were filtered by Polyhistor.

Although some scholars have assumed that Josephus, too, knew Berossus only via Polyhistor, the evidence for this is lacking. Other scholars have concluded that Josephus had a copy of Berossus’ work at hand, and recently Dr. Gregory E. Sterling has strongly argued that Josephus quoted directly from Berossus’ work. Scholars agree that the most reliable of the preserved quotations from Berossus’ work are those of Flavius Josephus. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++YOur comment "You can disagree with Mr. Barclay all you want but he is considered by those in many "theological camps" to be a respected scholar. Surely you don't think he is biased toward US, do you? This simply demonstrates that you can't make any absolute claims about Josephus and Berossus being accurate when it is quite evident that they are not absolute by any means. Do you actually believe Berossus was correct when he puts 30,000 some years between the flood and the fall of Babylon? You call that a MINOR discrepancy? And the way the narrative reads in chapter 19 of Book 1, if you break it down semantically, Josephus defnitely puts the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem as the same event. If you want me to break that sentence down semantically and explain why, I will do so. Just let me know. Again, Barclay, a respected scholar by many, agrees.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Actually the Watchtower also disagrees with Mr. Barclay on the previous statement as they also disagree with him in John 1:1. Did you just not read my entire response where even Berosus stated he did not have accurate data before Napolassar or did you just chose to ignore it? But the time that we are dealing with he did have accurate data from the Babylonian Chronicles. Your conclusion of "puts the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem as the same event" that is your opinion. I already explained why he did not, so not wasting my time on it anymore. Mr. Barclay actually disagrees with the Watchtower as the following quotes show, I hope that does not make you change your mind about Mr. Barclay, imagine you are ok with him contradicting the Bible, but he also contradicts the Watchtower on this one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The comments that you quote as substantial and accurate from Mr. Barclay just keep popping out this one is a treasure:

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38). ______________________________________________________

So you agree with Mr. Barclay on that statement? uhg that would not go well with the Watchtower or the Bible.

2 King 25:8Now on the seventh day of the fifth month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire.…

So, are you saying the Bible is wrong and Nabuchanessar destroyed the Temple in his first year , which would be 625 BCE since it is the Watchtower first year for NAB?

Jer 52:12 Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,

13 And burned the house of the Lord, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire:

You see Mr. Barclay also missed the following fact:

II Kings 24:7-17 "And the king of Egypt did not come out of his land anymore, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook ofEgypt to the River Euphrates. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother's name was Nehushtathe daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, as his servants were besieging it.

Then Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his servants, his princes, and his officers went out to the king of Babylon; and the king of Babylon, in the eighth year of his reign, took him prisoner. And he carried out from there all the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king's house, and he cut in pieces all the articles of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD as the LORD had said. Also he carried into captivity all Jerusalem: all the captains and all the mighty men of valor, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained except the poorest people of the land.

And he carried Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. The king's mother, the king's wives, his officers, and the mighty of the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. All the valiant men, seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths, one thousand, all who were strong and fit for war, these the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. Then the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah."

So, if you and Mr. Barclay are correct then these verses that show that Nabuchanezzar final blow against Jerusalem was in his 18 year is wrong, but also that in his 8 year he came in sieged the city would also be wrong. So, if Nabuchanezzar destroyed the Temple completely in his first year, how do you explain the different sieges against Jerusalem before the destruction by Nabuchanezzar that the Bible and Secular data support? Why in the world would Nabuchanezzar have to siege Jerusalem again and again, if he had already totally destroyed the city and the Temple in his first year?

Can you explain the following if Nabuchanezzar destroyed the city and the temple in his first year as you and Mr. Barclay say then:

You have many contradictions this is just another one, According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, he laid siege to Jerusalem, which eventually fell on 2 Adar (March 16) 597 BC. The Chronicle states:

In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar (16 March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jeconiah) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent forth to Babylon

So, Mr. Barclay is right 2500 years later, but the Chronicle which was from the Babylonian era is wrong?

The previous Chronicle corroborates what 2 Kings 24 says that in his 7 year he besieged the city and install Zedekiah as king. As you might know it was during Zedekiah's rule that eventually Nabuchanezzar came back and destroyed for the last time the city and the temple. So, if he already did that in the first year, why bother even coming back in his 7 year installing a New King and then return again later on during Zedekiah? I would love to hear what Mr. Barclay says about that.

So, was Zedekiah ruling in an empty City wit no Temple?

IF MR. BARCLAY IS CORRECT THAT WILL MAKE NAB DESTROYED THE TEMPLE IN HIS FIRST YEAR. THE WATCHOTWER FIRST YEAR FOR THE REING OF NAB IS 625 BCE, SO FROM 625 BCE - 537 BCE WE HAVE 88 YEARS. OK, I WILL TRY NOT TO BE SARCASTIC, BUT REALLY? Before you keep trying to argue different aspects of interpretation, I will appreciate if you explain that contradiction.

THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM "INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES" PUBLISHED BY THE WATCHTOWER In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government. (Jer 46:1, 2) Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon was “a golden cup” in the hand of Jehovah to pour out indignation against unfaithful Judah and Jerusalem. (Jer 25:15, 17, 18; 51:7) In 620 B.C.E. he compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute, but after about three years Jehoiakim revolted

AS YOU CAN SEE THE WATCHTOWER DOES NOT AGREE WITH MR. BARCLAY EITHER THAT JERUSALEM WAS DESTROYED DURING NAB FIST YEAR EITHER AND IN THAT REGARD I AGREE WITH THEM.

Josephus quoted from Berossus Kings list. The question is was the Kings List accurate? Since, in reality Josephus is a secondary source I don't see the need to waste my time on his statements anymore. I guess we have to agree to disagree on what he said.

The bottom line is the kings List accurate or not? If it is then you have a problem with the Watchtower timeline if it is not then I have to re-think that the secular historians are wrong. So, lets move on one step closer I still think Josephus quoted Berossus timeline because he believed it was accurate.

Again, did you forget to address my question on regards to your understanding of the destruction of Jerusalem was it on the First year of Nab as you and Mr. Barclay conclude? The watchtower has the first year of Nab as 625 BCE, so from 625 BCE - 537 BCE that would make 88 years. Is that what you agree with? I will let you address that more before continuing.

SO, YOUR MAIN SOURCE IS A MAN THAT CONTRADICTS THE WATCHTOWER AND THE BIBLE? I WILL APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY?

I am done will await your response, thank you.

Regards

Last edited by hperez on Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:20 pm, edited 8 times in total.

After the Egyptians were defeated by the Babylonians at Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II then besieged Jerusalem (TOTALLY CORRECT NABUCHADNEZZAR DID BESIEGED THE CITY, BUT BESIGING DOE NOT MEAN DESTRUCTION THIS DID HAPPENED IN 605 BCE. Jehoiakim changed allegiances to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem. He paid tribute from the treasury, some temple artifacts, and some of the royal family and nobility as hostages(THIS IS WHEN DANIEL WAS TAKEN AWAY HE WAS ROYAL NOT JUST ANYONE AND IN THE BOOK OF DANIELS WEE SEE HIM THERE IN THE SECOND YEAR OF NABUCHANEZZAR INTERPRETING THE DREAM TOTAL HARMONY OF THE HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL DATA. Dan 2:1 In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep.:) The subsequent failure of the Babylonian invasion into Egypt undermined Babylonian control of the area, and after three years, Jehoiakim switched allegiance back to the Egyptians and ceased paying the tribute to Babylon. In 599 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Judah and again laid siege to Jerusalem (THIS IS WHAT 2 KING 24:7-17, IS DESCRIBING HAPPENED IN NAB 7 YEAR OF RULE). In 598 BCE, Jehoiakim died during the siege and was succeeded by his son Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin). Jerusalem fell within three months. Jeconiah was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, who installed Zedekiah, Jehoiakim's brother, in his place.

(AND IT ENDS JUST LIKE THE BIBLE DESCRIBES IT AND HISTORY)

According to the Hebrew Bible, Zedekiah was made king of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597 BCE at the age of twenty-one. This is in agreement with a Babylonian chronicle, which states, "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon."[3]

The kingdom was at that time tributary to Nebuchadnezzar II. Despite the strong remonstrances of Jeremiah, Baruch ben Neriah and his other family and advisors, as well as the example of Jehoiakim, he revolted against Babylon, and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar responded by invading Judah. (2 Kings 25:1). Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Jerusalem in January 589 BC. During this siege, which lasted about eighteen months,[4] "every worst woe befell the city, which drank the cup of God's fury to the dregs". (2 Kings 25:3; Lamentations 4:4, 5, 9)

In the eleventh year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar succeeded in capturing Jerusalem. Zedekiah and his followers attempted to escape, making their way out of the city, but were captured on the plains of Jericho, and were taken to Riblah.

There, after seeing his sons put to death, his own eyes were put out, and, being loaded with chains, he was carried captive to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1-7; 2 Chronicles 36:12; Jeremiah 32:4,-5; 34:2-3; 39:1-7; 52:4-11; Ezekiel 12:13), where he remained a prisoner until he died.

After the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan was sent to destroy it. The city was plundered and razed to the ground. Solomon's Temple was destroyed. Only a small number of vinedressers and husbandmen were permitted to remain in the land. (Jeremiah 52:16)

THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA DOES NOT HAVE AN AGENDA LIKE THE WATCHTOWER AND IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. THE WATCHTOWER HAS BEEN GIVEN JUST ABOUT A CENTURY TO ACCEPT THE FACTS, BUT THEY CANNOT BECAUSE IT WILL DESTROY THEIR POWER STRUCTURE.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CONTRADICTS YOU AND MR. BARCLAY. WHY DID JEREMIAH IN CHAPTER 27 IS BEGGING ZEDEKIAH NOT TO REVOLT AGAINST NABUCHONOSOR OR HE ALSO WOULD BE DESTROYED. IF EVERYTHING HAD BEEN ALREADY DESTROYED IN NAB FIRST YEAR? I am not sure if I understood right about Mr. Barclays comment.

VERSE 8 SAYS "8 “‘“If, however, any nation or kingdom will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon or bow its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation with the sword, famine and plague, declares the Lord, until I destroy it by his hand.

Last edited by hperez on Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:46 am, edited 5 times in total.

I will make one last comment regarding Josephus words in "Against Apion"

"I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories; which records have a great agreement with our books in other things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say ... This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation [Babylon], gives us a history of ... Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaideans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means , he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyms king of Persia ."( Apion, I.:19;)

The Encyclopedia quoted previously has the following timeline which the bible do support:

605 BCE Nabuchodonosor attacks Egypt and also besiege Jerusalem they become servants and pay tribute, BUT TEMPLE AND CITY ARE NOT DESTROYED

597 BCE There is a second wave of attack and many are taken to Babylone. Zedekiah is put on the Throne as King (THERE IS STILL A CITY WITH THE TEMPLE)

587 BCE Final attack and destruction of the City/Temple.

Now, here is where the words of Josephus clearly shows that he does not make it the SAME EVENT as you and Barclay claim. He says "upon his being informed that they had revolted from him". Why would they revolt? From him? He had not subjugated them yet when he came against Egypt, so Berossus or Josephus are not making it one single event. Revolt means that a previous event made them be servants to Babylon, but up to that point it was to Egypt. If it was the same event Josephus and Berossus would have said and Jerusalem protected or resisted the attack or defended the City from the attack, but not that they had revolted. And what makes it even more clear is that he says that what prompted the final attack was when he heard they had revolted against him. The historical fact is that in the Nab18 they did revolt from serving Nab and he came for the last time and totally destroyed the City/Temple in 587 BCE. Again, "revolted" means that in a previous event they had been put in a position of vassalage and were serving Babylon at the time they revolted. They became servants of NAB along with the other nations of Jeremiah had prophecized, before they revolted and got totally destroyed and it all fits perfectly wit history and the Bible.

If someone attacks my house I am not revolting I am just defending my city/house. I can only revolt is someone previously had made me a servant. Again, they could not have revolted in the first year of NAB, because they were not serving Babylon up to that point in time.

This is just a side not on that quote I am not interested in arguing on anymore, since there is a ton of more information that we are dealing with.

Last edited by hperez on Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

One last comment I am sorry I just keep finding this contradictions in your comments you said/quoted the following:

Josephus:154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books;504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign505 and it was left without trace for 50 years,506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid,507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.508

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

RotherhamThis demonstrtaes that even Barclay recognized the fact that Berossus had the timing of this event as wrong. He specifically claims that Berossus' words put this event at the BEGINNING of Neb's reign, and that is simply not correct. Josephus couldn’t possibly be agreeing with the timeline.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My answer: Was Josephus a Jew? Did he read the Tanak (Old testament) I hope so for Josephus would have been the main book and what does that BOOK SAYS? Does the Bible says anywhere the following : ]for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign? You know what the bible says that in Nab 18 year he destroyed the Temple. So, was Josephus crazy when he said "154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books"? Of course not, I think Mr, Barclay puts too little weight on what the Bible says and for that matter it seems that he does not include among Josephus Books of his days the BIBLE.

Nowhere do you see Josephus say that Berossus said that NAB destroyed the Temple on his 18 year, but that what Berossus says as far as the account of Nab coming against Egypt and the rest and finally the kings list quoted from Berossus do agree or have no disagreement with the Books of his days(MAINLY I HOPE THE BIBLE). ACTUALLY, I WOULD USE THE SAME EXACT WORDS IN REGARDS TO BEROSSUS WORDS WITH THE DATA WE HAVE TODAY IN OUR BOOKS, THEY ARE ACCURATE IN REGARDS TO THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND THE KIGNS LIST. JUST LIKE JOSEPHUS I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DATING OF THE FLOOD OR EVERYTHNG ELSE BEROSSUS HAD SAID, BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EVENTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++YOU SAID :I understand. However, not all things have yet been analyzed which I claim will show that Berossus timeline is based on inaccurate information because it will be shown to be in conflict with many Biblical prophecies. I believe that the 3rd century BCE chronologists made a 20 year error in their calculations and perpetuated that error through many of the tablets that they made copies of and those same errors are being perpetuated today.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MY RESPONSE:

I should be able to answer your arguments as I am aware of them, but I will concentrate on data before the 3rd Century BCE so it would be impossible to dismiss as just an error. The data I will provide dates right in the Neo-Babylonian era and it does not depend on later Chronology account so no mistakes can be claimed by Chronologist of the third Century, but will show they were consistent with the facts they had. THE WATCHTOWER CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS WILL BE PROVEN BY THE FACTS TO BE WRONG AND HOW THEY PROMOTE WHAT I THINK IS NOTHING LESS THEN DECEPTION. THE SOURCE OF THE DATA IS NOT FROM JUST ONE SOURCE, BUT FROM MANY SOURCES TO MAKE IT SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AN OVERSIGHT. AN IMMENSE OF DATA IS RIGHT UP TO THE NEO-BABYLONIAN ERA WHICH DO NOT ALLOW FOR SCRIBAL MISTAKES. Also the parallel chronology of the Assyrians and Egypt (BOTH CHRONOLOGIES ARE NOT DEPENDENT OF THE NEOBABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGIST ACCOUNTS) corroborate Berossu's Kings list, The Uruk Kings list, Business tablets from the Neo-Babylonian era, Astronomical data. To that we need to add the chronological interlocking joints from one King to the next which do not allow for the addition of extra kings.

I WILL SHOW HOW THE BIBLICAL PROPHECIES DO NOT CONTRADICT BUT SUPPORT THE KINGS LIST TIMELINE. IT IS THE WATCHTOWER TIMELINE THAT HAS NO SUPPORT AND THE WATCHTOWER HAS TO TWIST WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IN AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THEIR TIMELINE. I AM SURE YOU WILL CONCENTRATE ON CRITICIZING AND FINDING MISTAKES ON THE DATA WE HAVE NOW, BUT CAN YOU ALSO GIVE ME SOME SUBSTANTIAL POSITIVE DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE

Last edited by hperez on Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:52 am, edited 19 times in total.

I will be responding to your points about Josephus, Barclay and Berossus in a little while in THIS thread, but I wanted to let you know that I will move your post about the Hillal Stele to another thread so please be sure to not confuse the two threads as we progress. If we determine there is nothing for us to add to the Josephus thread I can lock it until we decide we want to come back to it.

You said:I will address one last comment that Berossus comments were filtered by Polyhistor.

Although some scholars have assumed that Josephus, too, knew Berossus only via Polyhistor, the evidence for this is lacking. Other scholars have concluded that Josephus had a copy of Berossus’ work at hand, and recently Dr. Gregory E. Sterling has strongly argued that Josephus quoted directly from Berossus’ work. Scholars agree that the most reliable of the preserved quotations from Berossus’ work are those of Flavius Josephus. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

###################################So what we have is that the shoclars disagree, which means it is therefore inconclusive.###################################

YOur comment "You can disagree with Mr. Barclay all you want but he is considered by those in many "theological camps" to be a respected scholar. Surely you don't think he is biased toward US, do you? This simply demonstrates that you can't make any absolute claims about Josephus and Berossus being accurate when it is quite evident that they are not absolute by any means. Do you actually believe Berossus was correct when he puts 30,000 some years between the flood and the fall of Babylon? You call that a MINOR discrepancy? And the way the narrative reads in chapter 19 of Book 1, if you break it down semantically, Josephus defnitely puts the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem as the same event. If you want me to break that sentence down semantically and explain why, I will do so. Just let me know. Again, Barclay, a respected scholar by many, agrees.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Actually the Watchtower also disagrees with Mr. Barclay on the previous statement as they also disagree with him in John 1:1. Did you just not read my entire response where even Berosus stated he did not have accurate data before Napolassar or did you just chose to ignore it?

##########################################I did not ignore it. I asked you to show me the reference that states that. Did you ignore my request? You have misunderstood my main point. See further down.##########################################

But the time that we are dealing with he did have accurate data from the Babylonian Chronicles. Your conclusion of "puts the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem as the same event" that is your opinion. I already explained why he did not, so not wasting my time on it anymore. Mr. Barclay actually disagrees with the Watchtower as the following quotes show, I hope that does not make you change your mind about Mr. Barclay, imagine you are ok with him contradicting the Bible, but he also contradicts the Watchtower on this one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

############################################You've clearly misunderstood some of my points and they are clarifi9ed below, but, the fact is, Barclay is a a scholar of noteriety among those who accept the secular version of chronology and he states that Berossus puts them as the same event and that Josuphus followed suit in order to agree with Berossus. If you don't want to accept that, that is your business but it shows that you are noticing what you want to notice and blocking the rest.

I can look at the words of Josephus and see the every same problem and so can others. So don't claim that it has to be your way because it simply doesn't. ##############################################

The comments that you quote as substantial and accurate from Mr. Barclay just keep popping out this one is a treasure:

Barclay:505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

###########################################This part and the rest of this sectiojn of your response shows that you have no idea what it is that I am saying about Berossus and Josephus.

I am not saying that Berossus was RIGHT in claiming that Neb burned the temple in his first year and neither is Barclay saying that. What we are both saying is that Berossus was WRONG about that and Josephus let it slide because he did not correct it. You have completely misread my point. Maybe you are just a little too excited about all of this and you need to slow down and read a little more carefully what is being presented.##############################################

In your next post you said:

Now, here is where the words of Josephus clearly shows that he does not make it the SAME EVENT as you and Barclay claim. He says "upon his being informed that they had revolted from him". Why would they revolt? From him? He had not subjugated them yet when he came against Egypt, so Berossus or Josephus are not making it one single event. Revolt means that a previous event made them be servants to Babylon, but up to that point it was to Egypt. If it was the same event Josephus and Berossus would have said and Jerusalem protected or resisted the attack or defended the City from the attack, but not that they had revolted. And what makes it even more clear is that he says that what prompted the final attack was when he heard they had revolted against him. The historical fact is that in the Nab18 they did revolt from serving Nab and he came for the last time and totally destroyed the City/Temple in 587 BCE. Again, "revolted" means that in a previous event they had been put in a position of vassalage and were serving Babylon at the time they revolted. They became servants of NAB along with the other nations of Jeremiah had prophecized, before they revolted and got totally destroyed and it all fits perfectly wit history and the Bible.

If someone attacks my house I am not revolting I am just defending my city/house. I can only revolt is someone previously had made me a servant. Again, they could not have revolted in the first year of NAB, because they were not serving Babylon up to that point in time.

This is just a side not on that quote I am not interested in arguing on anymore, since there is a ton of more information that we are dealing with.

132and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar]437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled;438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians.441

With these words:

135When his father Naboupolassaros446 heard that the satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had rebelled,447 since he was no longer able to endure the hardships himself, he appointed his son Naboukodrosoros, who was still in his prime,448 over some parts of his army, and sent him out against him.449

136Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle,450 and brought the district again under their rule.451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years.452

137When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district,453 and appointed some of the Friends454 to take charge of the captives – Judeans,455 Phoenicians, Syrians, peoples bordering Egypt456– and to convey them to Babylon, together with the heavily-armed troops457 and the rest of the spoils, he himself rushed ahead with a small escort and got to Babylon across the desert.

[/quote][/quote]

We see in these sections by Josephus, that he speaks of the INITIAL attack against Egypt as a revolt or a rebellion so your comments do not hold water. Therefore, the erroneous use of the word "rebel" or "revolt" by Berossus was incorrect and shows it was not indicative of a later time but the same time. Jerusalem was under Egypt's jurisdiction at the time that Neb attacked them.

Neb's father is said to have sent Neb when Egypt REBELLED, but we know that was not a rebellion at that time for Egypt, because as you say, Egypt had not yet been subjugated yet so how could they be referred to as rebel or a revolt when they were not one? So this shows how confused both Berossus and Josephus were for allowing this chronological mixup to pass without a word of correction.

Seeing as how they spoke of Egypt as being a rebel or revolt, when they weren't, this shows that your argument does nothing to show that they thought of Jerusalem's revolt as a separate event. They are lumped together just like the comment about uprooting ALL the people at the same time.#######################################

You said:Nowhere do you see Josephus say that Berossus said that NAB destroyed the Temple on his 18 year, but that what Berossus says as far as the account of Nab coming against Egypt and the rest and finally the kings list quoted from Berossus do agree or have no disagreement with the Books of his days(MAINLY I HOPE THE BIBLE). ACTUALLY, I WOULD USE THE SAME EXACT WORDS IN REGARDS TO BEROSSUS WORDS WITH THE DATA WE HAVE TODAY IN OUR BOOKS, THEY ARE ACCURATE IN REGARDS TO THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND THE KIGNS LIST. JUST LIKE JOSEPHUS I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DATING OF THE FLOOD OR EVERYTHNG ELSE BEROSSUS HAD SAID, BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EVENTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.

###########################################This is incorrect because we have already seen that Berossus lumped Jerusalem and Egypt together. (see above) Your arguments have not overturned that, and remember, that AFTER that defeat, Josephus said that the city remained a DESERT for SEVENTY years. This proves that your view of this is incorrect or Josephus would not have said that the city was a DESERT for SEVENTY years.

Your comment "This is incorrect because we have already seen that Berossus lumped Jerusalem and Egypt together. (see above) Your arguments have not overturned that, and remember, that AFTER that defeat, Josephus said that the city remained a DESERT for SEVENTY years. This proves that your view of this is incorrect or Josephus would not have said that the city was a DESERT for SEVENTY years.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He did not say that in "Against Apions" he did say that in previous comments and he corrected those figures as I have shown. Actually, he did say 50 years in paragraph 21 the Temple was desolate to 539 BCE. He said that "during the Interval" of seventy years it was destroyed. I believe that interval as history shows started in 609 BCE and ended 70 years as the prophecy said in 539 BCE. That period of 70 years could not have started in 607 BCE anyway, because it ended in 539 BCE, the bible is clear as to what was to happen when the 70 years were over. I hope we agree with the words in Jeremiah 25:12:

Jeremiah 25: 12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

I hope the word "over" is clear.

God cannot lie and he is not confused the "Interval of 70 years" ended in 539 BCE, because God (not the Watchtower) said when it ended he was going to bring punishment over the King of Babylon. I don't think God is mathematically challenged. That punishment did not come on 537 BCE or 535 BCE, but in 539 BCE. Perfect harmony with what Josephus and history shows. I don't think 605 BCE was the beginning of the prophecy as it would have been if the Temple was destroyed in the first year of Nab. This would have made the 70 years end in 535 BCE, which no one agrees with specially the Bible.

The arrogance that the Watchtower Organization has is without limit. By maintaining that the 70 year started in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE, they are calling God a liar. It seems that God got impatient and brought judgment upon the King of Babylon too soon according to their timeline. Instead of waiting until the Watchtower timeline said the 70 years period ended God rushed and brought judgment over the King of Babylon in 539 BCE two years earlier

The truth is that it really does not matter if we agree on what he meant, but the real question is in the King's list right or wrong? If it is correct, then Josephus did mean 50 years if it is wrong then he meant what you claim. So, lets examine the king list timeline.

________________________________________________

Your comment "We see in these sections by Josephus, that he speaks of the INITIAL attack against Egypt as a revolt or a rebellion so your comments do not hold water. Therefore, the erroneous use of the word "rebel" or "revolt" by Berossus was incorrect and shows it was not indicative of a later time but the same time. Jerusalem was under Egypt's jurisdiction at the time that Neb attacked them.

Neb's father is said to have sent Neb when Egypt REBELLED, but we know that was not a rebellion at that time for Egypt, because as you say, Egypt had not yet been subjugated yet so how could they be referred to as rebel or a revolt when they were not one? So this shows how confused both Berossus and Josephus were for allowing this chronological mixup to pass without a word of correction.

Seeing as how they spoke of Egypt as being a rebel or revolt, when they weren't, this shows that your argument does nothing to show that they thought of Jerusalem's revolt as a separate event. They are lumped together just like the comment about uprooting ALL the people at the same time._____________________________________________________

That is incorrect for the following historical reason:

One account says the following: Egypt was allied with the Assyrians, and marched to their aid against the Babylonians. Circa 609 BCE, the Egyptian army of Pharaoh Necho II was delayed at Megiddo (in Israel) by the forces of King Josiah of Judah. Josiah was killed and his army was defeated.

"After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates; and Josiah went out against him. But he sent messengers to him, saying, 'What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I have not come against you this day, but against the house with which I have war; for God commanded me to make haste. Refrain from meddling with God, who is with me, lest He destroy you.' Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself so that he might fight with him, and did not heed the words of Necho from the mouth of God. So he came to fight in the Valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, 'Take me away, for I am severely wounded.' His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah." (2 Chr. 35:20-24).

The Egyptians were further delayed at Riblah, and Necho arrived at Carchemish too late. Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had surprised the Assyrians and had captured Carchemish. He then turned on the Egyptians and thoroughly defeated them in a bloody battle and the combined Egyptian and Assyrian forces were devastated.

Another accounts says:

In 616, Nabopolassar attacked the Assyrians and defeated them, but an Egyptian army led by Psammetichus I came up to assist the Assyrian king (Sin-shar-ishkun), and Nabopolassar chose to withdraw to Babylon.

In 612, the two allies attacked the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, captured it and destroyed it. The Assyrian king, Sin-shar-ishkun, perished in the flames. His successor, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the provincial capital of Harran, where he established his government, still claiming sovereignty over Assyria. During the subsequent years Nabopolassar successfully campaigned in Assyria, and by the end of 610, he marched against Harran, joined by Median forces. Ashur-uballit fled, and the city was captured and plundered either late in 610 or early in 609 B.C.E.55 Late in the summer of 609 Ashur-uballit, supported by a large Egyptian force headed by Pharaoh Necho, made a last attempt to recapture Harran, but failed. This definitely put an end to the Assyrian empire.

The Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, after the failed attempt to recapture Harran in 609, succeeded in taking over the areas in the west, including Palestine, for about four years, although his control of these areas seems to have been rather general and loose. But the battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. put an end to this brief Egyptian presence in the west. (Jeremiah 46:2) After a series of successful campaigns to “Hattu,” Nebuchadnezzar made it clear to Necho that he was the real heir to the Assyrian Empire, and “never again did the king of Egypt come out from his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that happened to belong to the king of Egypt up to the river of Euphrates.”―2 Kings 24:7, NW.57 ____________________________________________________________

Your comments are totally wrong as the previous historical account shows that Pharaoh Necho did revolt and tried to capture Harran from the Babylonians (Assyria and Egypt were allies and Babylon took it away from Assyria). They had been fighting for over a decade and that battle in 609 BCE was not the end of it. It was not the first attack as you make it sound like. This is not the case as with Jerusalem at all. The Jewish armies did not come and attack the Babylonians. The Jewish Armies had not been fighting the Babylonian at all up to that point. But later, we do find Jerusalem joining the Egyptians years later and revolting as Berossus said, but this was not in his first year.

Wikipedia said : The subsequent failure of the Babylonian invasion into Egypt undermined Babylonian control of the area, and after three years, Jehoiakim switched allegiance back to the Egyptians and ceased paying the tribute to Babylon. In 599 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Judah and again laid siege to Jerusalem (THIS IS WHAT 2 KING 24:7-17, IS DESCRIBING HAPPENED IN NAB 7 YEAR OF RULE). In 598 BCE, Jehoiakim died during the siege and was succeeded by his son Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin). Jerusalem fell within three months. Jeconiah was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, who installed Zedekiah, Jehoiakim's brother, in his place.

So, yes I still stand that when Josephus says quoting Berosus "Upon revolting" was signaling a different event that was triggered when they revolted and this did not happen until later when Jerusalem allied themselves with the Egyptians against the Babylonian. .

This Wikipedia link might shed some light on why the Battle of Carquemis was fought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_CarchemishWhat is it you asked for? You said Actually the Watchtower also disagrees with Mr. Barclay on the previous statement as they also disagree with him in John 1:1. Did you just not read my entire response where even Berosus stated he did not have accurate data before Napolassar or did you just chose to ignore it?

##########################################I did not ignore it. I asked you to show me the reference that states that. Did you ignore my request? You have misunderstood my main point. See further down.##########################################

My response:

The information is from Stanley Mayer Burstein, Op. cit., p. 22. Berossus himself indicates that it was impossible to give a trustworthy history of Babylonia before Nabonassar, as that king Berossus said “collected and destroyed the records of the kings before him in order that the list of Chaldaean kings might begin with him"

Burstein also commented:

[ Burstein points out that, although Berossus made a number of surprising errors and exercised little criticism on his sources, “the fragments make it clear that he did choose good sources, most likely from a library at Babylon, and that he reliably reported their contents in Greek” (Burstein, op. cit., p. 8. Emphasis added.) Robert Drews, in his article “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” published in Iraq, Vol. XXXVII, part 1 (Spring 1975), arrives at the same conclusion: “That the chronicles were among these records cannot be doubted.” (p. 54) This has been demonstrated by a careful comparison of Berossus’ statements with the Babylonian chronicles. Paul Schnabel, too, concludes: “That he everywhere has used cuneiform records, above all the chronicles, is manifest at every step.” — Schnabel, op. cit. (see note 5 above), p. 184. ]---------------------------Despite these problems, however, for later periods, and especially for the critical Neo-Babylonian period, it has been established that Berossus used the generally very reliable Babylonian chronicles, or sources similar to these documents, and that he carefully reported their contents in Greek. The figures he gives for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

Burstein, op. cit.,p. 13. The Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle gives “2,150,000 years” instead of “150,000,” the figure preserved by Syncellus. None of them is believed to be the original figure given by Berossus. (Burstein, p. 13, note 3.) ============================================

You said "You've clearly misunderstood some of my points and they are clarifi9ed below, but, the fact is, Barclay is a a scholar of noteriety among those who accept the secular version of chronology and he states that Berossus puts them as the same event and that Josuphus followed suit in order to agree with Berossus. If you don't want to accept that, that is your business but it shows that you are noticing what you want to notice and blocking the rest.

I am not saying that Berossus was RIGHT in claiming that Neb burned the temple in his first year and neither is Barclay saying that. What we are both saying is that Berossus was WRONG about that and Josephus let it slide because he did not correct it. You have completely misread my point. Maybe you are just a little too excited about all of this and you need to slow down and read a little more carefully what is being presented.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The problem is that both comments if we are to accept what you are saying contradict the kings list Josephus quotes from Berossus. So, it totally makes no sense, so lets move to the Kings list, because in the end what will define what Berossus and Josephus meant is totally related to Kings List. Is the Kings list correct or not? If you try to bring Furully who is a Jehovah's Witness I have enough sources to discredit his writings. He tries to pass three Assyrian Kings as Babylonian Kings. He just like the Watchtower have an agenda, specially not disclosing to his readers he is a Jehovah's Witness. Not only his work has been found to be wrong, but his opinion cannot be unbiased since no Jehovah's Witness can contradict the Watchtower without reprisal. So, his opinion holds no weight.

I agree that Nabuchonosor did come against Judea in his first year and took captives which included Daniel, but the Temple was not destroyed. I will let you answer the next post before I continue.

You said:Your comment "This is incorrect because we have already seen that Berossus lumped Jerusalem and Egypt together. (see above) Your arguments have not overturned that, and remember, that AFTER that defeat, Josephus said that the city remained a DESERT for SEVENTY years. This proves that your view of this is incorrect or Josephus would not have said that the city was a DESERT for SEVENTY years.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He did not say that in "Against Apions" he did say that in previous comments and he corrected those figures as I have shown.

##########################################This is again incorrect. He said it in paragraph 19 just two paragraphs before 21. That's why in the same context he would not change without some kind of indication as to why. He already stated in paragraph 19 right after the comments about Neb conquering Egypt and Jerusalem that the city was then deserted for 70 years. It would be completely inconsistent in the same context to then claim it was only 50. He was clearly talking about the "obscurity" of the temple being 50 years rather than the destruction.

Think about it. If Josephus believed the city was deserted for 70 years, just when did those 70 years or a desert-like state take place according to him? If he thought they started in the first year of Neb according to Berossus' account, then that would end about 35 BCE. If he thinks the 70 years started in the 18th year of Neb that means the deserted state would have had to last 20 years after the Jews were allowed to return. Neither of those make any sense according to the Bibgle or according to history. That should tell you that Josephus, by relying on Berossus, did not end up with the correct understanding.#######################################

Actually, he did say 50 years in paragraph 21 the Temple was desolate to 539 BCE. He said that "during the Interval" of seventy years it was destroyed.

#########################################Not according to Barclay's rendition. Barclay translates that the "city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus". Now the Whiston's transaltion allows for your interpretation but it also allows for mine, but Barclay shows that there is but one way to understand the words. So Barclay clarifies for us how to understand Whiston's translation which means the "during" meant the entire time.

The Greek literally reads "the city was desolated time seventy years". the word rendered "time" is "chronos" which does not mean DURING, but simply an interval of time. If it were in the Dative case, it could refer to the time during which something occurs, but this is in the Accusative and therefore does not work. You can confirm this through the use of lexicons and interlinears of which can be found online.

DURING is nothing more than an unwarranted interpolation. So according to the Greek it clearly states that the city was desolated for 70 years, not DURING 70 years. ########################################

I believe that interval as history shows started in 609 BCE and ended 70 years as the prophecy said in 539 BCE. That period of 70 years could not have started in 607 BCE anyway, because it ended in 539 BCE, the bible is clear as to what was to happen when the 70 years were over. I hope we agree with the words in Jeremiah 25:12:

Jeremiah 25: 12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

I hope the word "over" is clear.

###########################################Again, you are mistaken for a couple of reasons. First, technically, it does not state when the punishment would come and history shows that the punishment mentioned, being an everlasting ruin, did not happen for centuries later. The account simply says that the king and the nation would be punished after the 70 years ended. It was, but it was not an immediate punishment, as is proven by history. The punishment that was mentioned, being an everlasting ruin, did not happen at the end of the seventy years. This reference does not prove what you think it does.

Secondly, if one wants to insist that it includes what happened in 539 BCE there is something else to consider linguistically. In Jeremiah 25:12 we have the following that should be analyzed:

There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT. This can be proven when this Hebrew prefix is found in the book of Daniel in reference to the age of Darius. (Daniel 5:31)It states Darius was ABOUT sixty two years of age. The prefix that constitutes the ABOUT rendering is the Hebrew letter Kec which looks like a backwards capital C. This is the same prefix we find on the word rendered "fulfilled" at Jer. 25:12. So, according to the lexicons, this prefix could change the idea to "ABOUT" fulfilled rather than completely fulfilled, which would harmonize perfectly with the thought that the punishment was within PROXIMITY of the fulfillment of the 70 years, not exact. In other words, it could read, "when the seventy years are ABOUT fulfilled, the king of Babylon would be punished."

Therefore, this verse, all considered, causes no issue with the chronology that we have arrived at which we believe will be demanded by other Biblical prophecies about Egypt and Tyre, to yet be considered.###########################################

God cannot lie and he is not confused the "Interval of 70 years" ended in 539 BCE, because God (not the Watchtower) said when it ended he was going to bring punishment over the King of Babylon. I don't think God is mathematically challenged. That punishment did not come on 537 BCE or 535 BCE, but in 539 BCE. Perfect harmony with what Josephus and history shows. I don't think 605 BCE was the beginning of the prophecy as it would have been if the Temple was destroyed in the first year of Nab. This would have made the 70 years end in 535 BCE, which no one agrees with specially the Bible.

The arrogance that the Watchtower Organization has is without limit. By maintaining that the 70 year started in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE, they are calling God a liar. It seems that God got impatient and brought judgment upon the King of Babylon too soon according to their timeline. Instead of waiting until the Watchtower timeline said the 70 years period ended God rushed and brought judgment over the King of Babylon in 539 BCE two years earlier

###################################################Again, you are employing that scripture in a way that does not work. See above as to why.

I also believe that there is a way to show that the Israelite did not leave immediately at the defeat of Babylon and did not arrive back on their soil until circa 537 BCE but that proof can wait as we are still discussing Josephus comments in this thread.###################################################

The truth is that it really does not matter if we agree on what he meant, but the real question is in the King's list right or wrong? If it is correct, then Josephus did mean 50 years if it is wrong then he meant what you claim. So, lets examine the king list timeline.

###################################################If you wish to present your case with the king's list. Please start a NEW topic. Do NOT put it in this topic. Let's try and keep these things separate.###################################################

________________________________________________Your comment "We see in these sections by Josephus, that he speaks of the INITIAL attack against Egypt as a revolt or a rebellion so your comments do not hold water. Therefore, the erroneous use of the word "rebel" or "revolt" by Berossus was incorrect and shows it was not indicative of a later time but the same time. Jerusalem was under Egypt's jurisdiction at the time that Neb attacked them.

Neb's father is said to have sent Neb when Egypt REBELLED, but we know that was not a rebellion at that time for Egypt, because as you say, Egypt had not yet been subjugated yet so how could they be referred to as rebel or a revolt when they were not one? So this shows how confused both Berossus and Josephus were for allowing this chronological mixup to pass without a word of correction.

Seeing as how they spoke of Egypt as being a rebel or revolt, when they weren't, this shows that your argument does nothing to show that they thought of Jerusalem's revolt as a separate event. They are lumped together just like the comment about uprooting ALL the people at the same time._____________________________________________________

That is incorrect for the following historical reason:

In 616, Nabopolassar attacked the Assyrians and defeated them, but an Egyptian army led by Psammetichus I came up to assist the Assyrian king (Sin-shar-ishkun), and Nabopolassar chose to withdraw to Babylon.

In 612, the two allies attacked the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, captured it and destroyed it. The Assyrian king, Sin-shar-ishkun, perished in the flames. His successor, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the provincial capital of Harran, where he established his government, still claiming sovereignty over Assyria. During the subsequent years Nabopolassar successfully campaigned in Assyria, and by the end of 610, he marched against Harran, joined by Median forces. Ashur-uballit fled, and the city was captured and plundered either late in 610 or early in 609 B.C.E.55 Late in the summer of 609 Ashur-uballit, supported by a large Egyptian force headed by Pharaoh Necho, made a last attempt to recapture Harran, but failed. This definitely put an end to the Assyrian empire.

The Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, after the failed attempt to recapture Harran in 609, succeeded in taking over the areas in the west, including Palestine, for about four years, although his control of these areas seems to have been rather general and loose. But the battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. put an end to this brief Egyptian presence in the west. (Jeremiah 46:2) After a series of successful campaigns to “Hattu,” Nebuchadnezzar made it clear to Necho that he was the real heir to the Assyrian Empire, and “never again did the king of Egypt come out from his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that happened to belong to the king of Egypt up to the river of Euphrates.”―2 Kings 24:7, NW.57 ____________________________________________________________

Your comments are totally wrong as the previous historical account shows that Pharaoh Necho did revolt and tried to capture Harran from the Babylonians (Assyria and Egypt were allies and Babylon took it away from Assyria). They had been fighting for over a decade and that battle in 609 BCE was not the end of it. It was not the first attack as you make it sound like. This is not the case as with Jerusalem at all. The Jewish armies did not come and attack the Babylonians. The Jewish Armies had not been fighting the Babylonian at all up to that point. But later, we do find Jerusalem joining the Egyptians years later and revolting as Berossus said, but this was not in his first year.

Wikipedia said : The subsequent failure of the Babylonian invasion into Egypt undermined Babylonian control of the area, and after three years, Jehoiakim switched allegiance back to the Egyptians and ceased paying the tribute to Babylon. In 599 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Judah and again laid siege to Jerusalem (THIS IS WHAT 2 KING 24:7-17, IS DESCRIBING HAPPENED IN NAB 7 YEAR OF RULE). In 598 BCE, Jehoiakim died during the siege and was succeeded by his son Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin). Jerusalem fell within three months. Jeconiah was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, who installed Zedekiah, Jehoiakim's brother, in his place.

So, yes I still stand that when Josephus says quoting Berosus "Upon revolting" was signaling a different event that was triggered when they revolted and this did not happen until later when Jerusalem allied themselves with the Egyptians against the Babylonian. .

###########################################You should look closely again at your own information and compare it again to what Josephus says. It does not fit with the facts.

Egypt had not been subdued by Babylon by the time that the battle of Carchemish was fought. Your own information established that. Had you chosen Assyria then you would have had an argument, but as your own information shows, when Egypt attacked Harran to recapture it, this was not a rebellion by someone who had been subjugated by Babylon but was an attack.

Look again at how chapter 19 reads and you will see how Berossus and Josephus throughbhis agreement, lump these two things together.

132and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar]437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land,

Please note that this is saying that Nabopolassar sent his son Neb not only against Egypt but against Jerusalem. There's no other way to read that sentence. This shows that they have lumped the two events together in history because Nabopolassar did NOT send Neb against Jerusalem, only Egypt, but the record here says that Nabopolassar sent Neb against BOTH.

when he learned that they had rebelled; 438 he defeated them all

Who would the ALL be in this context? It would have to include Jerusalem AND Egypt because they were just mentioned in the first part of the sentence. This again shows that they are lumping these events together by the very way it is written. And Josephus seems to agree. And this is how Barclay, a noted scholar, reads it as well.

and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians.441

Again, making no distinction in history of how many deportaions there actually were, speaking of them as if they were a single event.#######################################

You stated:What is it you asked for? You said Actually the Watchtower also disagrees with Mr. Barclay on the previous statement as they also disagree with him in John 1:1. Did you just not read my entire response where even Berosus stated he did not have accurate data before Napolassar or did you just chose to ignore it?##########################################I did not ignore it. I asked you to show me the reference that states that. Did you ignore my request? You have misunderstood my main point. See further down.##########################################

Hperez response:

The information is from Stanley Mayer Burstein, Op. cit., p. 22. Berossus himself indicates that it was impossible to give a trustworthy history of Babylonia before Nabonassar, as that king Berossus said “collected and destroyed the records of the kings before him in order that the list of Chaldaean kings might begin with him"

Burstein also commented:

[ Burstein points out that, although Berossus made a number of surprising errors and exercised little criticism on his sources, “the fragments make it clear that he did choose good sources, most likely from a library at Babylon, and that he reliably reported their contents in Greek” (Burstein, op. cit., p. 8. Emphasis added.) Robert Drews, in his article “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” published in Iraq, Vol. XXXVII, part 1 (Spring 1975), arrives at the same conclusion: “That the chronicles were among these records cannot be doubted.” (p. 54) This has been demonstrated by a careful comparison of Berossus’ statements with the Babylonian chronicles. Paul Schnabel, too, concludes: “That he everywhere has used cuneiform records, above all the chronicles, is manifest at every step.” — Schnabel, op. cit. (see note 5 above), p. 184. ]---------------------------Despite these problems, however, for later periods, and especially for the critical Neo-Babylonian period, it has been established that Berossus used the generally very reliable Babylonian chronicles, or sources similar to these documents, and that he carefully reported their contents in Greek. The figures he gives for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

Burstein, op. cit.,p. 13. The Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle gives “2,150,000 years” instead of “150,000,” the figure preserved by Syncellus. None of them is believed to be the original figure given by Berossus. (Burstein, p. 13, note 3.)

============================================

###########################################What I am wanting to see is where did BEROSSUS make the statement about his chronology not being reliable before Nabonassar? I see where scholars have mentioned that, but where is the statement by Berossus himself recorded?###########################################

You said "You've clearly misunderstood some of my points and they are clarifi9ed below, but, the fact is, Barclay is a a scholar of noteriety among those who accept the secular version of chronology and he states that Berossus puts them as the same event and that Josuphus followed suit in order to agree with Berossus. If you don't want to accept that, that is your business but it shows that you are noticing what you want to notice and blocking the rest.

I am not saying that Berossus was RIGHT in claiming that Neb burned the temple in his first year and neither is Barclay saying that. What we are both saying is that Berossus was WRONG about that and Josephus let it slide because he did not correct it. You have completely misread my point. Maybe you are just a little too excited about all of this and you need to slow down and read a little more carefully what is being presented.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The problem is that both comments if we are to accept what you are saying contradict the kings list Josephus quotes from Berossus. So, it totally makes no sense, so lets move to the Kings list, because in the end what will define what Berossus and Josephus meant is totally related to Kings List. Is the Kings list correct or not? If you try to bring Furully who is a Jehovah's Witness I have enough sources to discredit his writings. He tries to pass three Assyrian Kings as Babylonian Kings. He just like the Watchtower have an agenda, specially not disclosing to his readers he is a Jehovah's Witness. But his work has been proven false.

##########################################Time will tell if that proves to be true. I imagine you are assuming far too much.

Again, if you want to introduce the King's List subject, -please do so in a DIFFERENT topic.

We will have to move to another subject, because we can continue playing word games to make our views correct, since now "over" is not "over" now it means "near". I did not know God so inexact in this prophecy, since he was so exact in 1914 date. I guess the Watchtower is more accurate. The problem is that history shows God brought judgment over Babylon in 539 BCE, so it marked the end of the 70 year. If you are going to say that is wrong I don't see how the Watchtower rendition makes anymore logic. Either way read my last comment on Jer 25:12. I am responding to only a few.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is interesting:

Again, you are mistaken for a couple of reasons. First, technically, it does not state when the punishment would come (are you serious) and history shows that the punishment mentioned, being an everlasting ruin, did not happen for centuries later. ([Who care all we are talking about is when it started that marks the end of the 70 years, it can finish in 1914, WHEN IT WAS TOTALLY FINISHED MEANS NOTHING). The account simply says that the king and the nation would be punished after the 70 years ended. It was, but it was not an immediate punishment, as is proven by history. The punishment that was mentioned, being an everlasting ruin, did not happen at the end of the seventy years. This reference does not prove what you think it does.[/color] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ARE YOU IMPLYING GOD COULD HAVE STARTED HIS JUDGMENT BEFORE THE 70 YEAR PERIOD HAD ENDED? You said "There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT" wow "about" and "Near" are big words so how much do you need +- 10% or +-7 years. Since, well 1914 is so accurate to the exact month not just the year, but this prophecies oh no it was just "about" or "near". The Watchtower would not allow for such a wide range of interpretation for their 1914 date. What makes this prophecy so wonderful is the accuracy of Gods words. I don't make God inaccurate to make the Watchtower accurate.

So, did God punished the King of Babylon after the 70 years ended in 539 BCE or not? It is simple, or now the Bible does not mean what it says, but another huge twist. I don't have to read in the Bible where it says it will happen in 539 BCE, but are you disagreeing that in 539 BCE Babylon was destroyed? So, I think we know when the 70 years ended. All you have is twisting words, because History does not back your timeline. If that reference does not do what I think it does it sure does not support yours that is for sure.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you said "I also believe that there is a way to show that the Israelite did not leave immediately at the defeat of Babylon and did not arrive back on their soil until circa 537 BCE but that proof can wait as we are still discussing Josephus comments in this thread.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Since I don't think this 70 years were directed at the Jews it does not mean anything to me when they left. The prophecy says it was for Babylon. The prophecy in Jeremiah 25 does not say when the 70 years ended his people will come out, but that he would bring judgment on Babylon. I know Jews made it to Judea in 537 BCE, but not even then the Temple was rebuilt until 18 years later. That is the 70 years over the temple from 587 BCE-517 BCE, when the temple finally got rebuilt.

Jeremiah 25:10 I will put an end to the sounds of joy and gladness, to the glad celebration of brides and grooms in these lands. I will put an end to the sound of people grinding meal. I will put an end to lamps shining in their houses. 11 This whole area will become a desolate wasteland. These nations will be subject to the king of Babylon for seventy years.’

12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

Three things are predicted in this prophecy: (1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”. (2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. (3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the Chaldeans.

It was not only in regards to the Jews. So, it does not matter when they left. You tie it to the destruction of the Temple, but the Prophecy does not say that it says "these nations" not just Judea.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "What I am wanting to see is where did BEROSSUS make the statement about his chronology not being reliable before Nabonassar? I see where scholars have mentioned that, but where is the statement by Berossus himself recorded+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[color=#BF0040]It works the same as when you quote Mr. Barclays opinion. I think if Berossus said that the data had been destroyed I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that much of the data had been destroyed. Also, Mr. Burstein says most of the outrageous data that had been attributed to Berossus were not his words.[/color]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If you wish to present your case with the king's list. Please start a NEW topic. Do NOT put it in this topic. Let's try and keep these things separate.###################################################

I think the Stele section will start touching on the veracity of the Kings list. The Kings list is a context to Josephus comments so you cannot separate the two like it is something different. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You Said "There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT. This can be proven when this Hebrew prefix is found in the book of Daniel in reference to the age of Darius. (Daniel 5:31)It states Darius was ABOUT sixty two years of age. The prefix that constitutes the ABOUT rendering is the Hebrew letter Kec which looks like a backwards capital C. This is the same prefix we find on the word rendered "fulfilled" at Jer. 25:12. So, according to the lexicons, this prefix could change the idea to "ABOUT" fulfilled rather than completely fulfilled, which would harmonize perfectly with the thought that the punishment was within PROXIMITY of the fulfillment of the 70 years, not exact. In other words, it could read,There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT. This can be proven when this Hebrew prefix is found in the book of Daniel in reference to the age of Darius. (Daniel 5:31)It states Darius was ABOUT sixty two years of age. The prefix that constitutes the ABOUT rendering is the Hebrew letter Kec which looks like a backwards capital C. This is the same prefix we find on the word rendered "fulfilled" at Jer. 25:12. So, according to the lexicons, this prefix could change the idea to "ABOUT" fulfilled rather than completely fulfilled, which would harmonize perfectly with the thought that the punishment was within PROXIMITY of the fulfillment of the 70 years, not exact. In other words, it could read, "when the seventy years are ABOUT fulfilled, the king of Babylon would be punished."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I guess now you know more then the hundreds of scholars that have translated it differently then you. Can you show one respectful translation that has translated it your way (0h, I forgot they are all wrong, but you and the Watchtower are right of course). Also, I don't need to twist the word of God, God did bring judgment upon Babylon as he promised in 539 BCE. It was the beginning of the fulfillment of his punishment for Babylon, but it had to start when the 70 year period had ended not before. When the Prophecy about the punishment to Babylon was completed is irrelevant the point we are dealing with is when it started which marks the end of the 70 years for Babylon. I don't need to re-interpret the Bible.

NET 12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. NKJV 12 ‘Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquityASV 12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Jehovah, for their iniquity, and the land of the ChaldeansESV 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the ChaldeansNASB 12 ‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the Lord, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the ChaldeansNIV 12 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,”

AND THIS IS THE ULTIMATE SHOCKER NOT EVEN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

NWT 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error

Does the word "have been fulfilled" has a special meaning for the Watchtower? Or does it mean what it normally means?

When did that happen again? Are we going to start arguing that Babylon was not destroyed in 539 BCE? I hope not.

Did all those scholar forgot what the Hebrew word meant? NON OF THEM GAVE IT THIS OPEN ENDED MEANING YOU NOW WANT TO IMPOSE ON THE TEXT.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Not according to Barclay's rendition. Barclay translates that the "city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus". Now the Whiston's transaltion allows for your interpretation but it also allows for mine, but Barclay shows that there is but one way to understand the words. So Barclay clarifies for us how to understand Whiston's translation which means the "during" meant the entire time.

The Greek literally reads "the city was desolated time seventy years". the word rendered "time" is "chronos" which does not mean DURING, but simply an interval of time. If it were in the Dative case, it could refer to the time during which something occurs, but this is in the Accusative and therefore does not work. You can confirm this through the use of lexicons and interlinears of which can be found online.

DURING is nothing more than an unwarranted interpolation. So according to the Greek it clearly states that the city was desolated for 70 years, not DURING 70 years_______________________________________________

I will analyze it further. The problem Is that the Kings list timeline , do not allow for 70 year from the 18 year of Nab through 539 BCE or 537 BCE.

The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings according to Berossus:Nabopolasar 21 years 625-605 BCENebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562Awel-Marduck 2 years 561-560Neriglissar 4 years 559-556Labashi-Marduck 9 Months 556Nabonidus 17 Years 555-539

[b]Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 [b]The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). [u]The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign,[u] but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus’ reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39[/u]); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus’ understanding of history). [/b][/u]

Just because Josephus compresses the narrative does not make it the same event as the above comment shows.

Last edited by hperez on Thu May 01, 2014 8:01 am, edited 11 times in total.

There is no direct indication in the Chronicle that Necho II was himself with the Egyptian army. Indeed the apparent ease with which the Baby- lonians reached Carchemish through territory where they had been defeated by the Egyptians in the previous year makes it more likely that the Egyptian force consisted in the main of garrison troops. However, the chronicler's silence may mean little because Necho is known to have been in the field in person at Harran in 609 B.C. although then, as perhaps on this occasion, no special mention is made of him.

Berossus has a somewhat different description of the enemy: 'When Nabolassar, father of Nabucodrosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coelesyria and Phenicia, had revolted from him, not being able to bear fatigues himself, committed certain parts of his army to his son Nabucodrosor, who was then but young, and sent him against the rebel. Nabucodrosor joined battle with him and conquered him, and reduced the country under his domination again.' While Josephus and the Old Testament both name Necho it is only possible here, in the absence of any particular description of the enemy in the Babylonian Chronicle, to note how all sources agree that the battle of Carche- mish was a deliberate clash between the two nations during the prolonged struggle to gain control of Syria after the collapse of the Assyrian regime. The Chronicle certainly places this famous battle in its true perspective. It was hardly the deathblow to Assyria, for Assur-uballit had already disappeared by 609 B.C. Even had the Egyptians won at Carchemish they could never have resuscitated the Assyrian empire in its old form, for greater forces than those of Egypt and Babylon were now massing not far away.

No argument Berossus gave a slightly different detail, but that still does not change the dates of when it happened. Mr. Wiseman holds the same timeline as Berossus. The Niece comment explains what seems to be a contradiction.

b]Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign,[u] but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus’ reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus’ understanding of history). [/u]

Niece actually does not believe that Berossus mentioned the Temple, since it was not an actual quote verbatim.

I am commenting on the parts that are relevant. You did a lot of ranting that made no points to consider, so I did not comment on those, only those that did, or at least came close.

My comments are again purple between the ##############s.

You said:

The problem is that history shows God brought judgment over Babylon in 539 BCE, so it marked the end of the 70 year. If you are going to say that is wrong I don't see how the Watchtower rendition makes anymore logic. Either way read my last comment on Jer 25:12. I am responding to only a few.

##########################################Although 539 BCE could be said to mark the end of a 70 year dominance by Babylon via Neb and his sons, I will show, eventually, (likely in another thread) that it did not mark the end of the 70 year exile of Israel.#########################################

You said:

So, did God punished the King of Babylon after the 70 years ended in 539 BCE or not? It is simple, or now the Bible does not mean what it says, but another huge twist. I don't have to read in the Bible where it says it will happen in 539 BCE, but are you disagreeing that in 539 BCE Babylon was destroyed? So, I think we know when the 70 years ended. All you have is twisting words, because History does not back your timeline. If that reference does not do what I think it does it sure does not support yours that is for sure.

##########################################Once again, I am not sure you understood the point I was making. Of course God did indeed punish Babylon after the 70 years were ended. But my point was that the punishment that is mentioned in that sentence did not happen for centuries later. Do you realize that or not?

God also punished the king of Babylon BEFORE the 70 year exile was completed, or, according to the mentioned "prefix", ABOUT the time the 70 years was fulfilled. I can't help it if that prefix is there. I didn't put it there. If it means ABOUT as it does in Daniel 5:31 then it can surely mean it at Jer. 25:12. Whether translators rendered it that way or not is hardly the issue. The real question is: "Is it there or not?" And the answer is "Yes, it is there." With that understanding, the reference in no way contradicts the Biblical account.

The Biblical account demands a longer exile than 50 years in order for the 40 year desolation of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar to have taken place. The 50 year exile also does not allow for the prophecy concerning the demise of Tyre for 70 years. That's why we know the secular timeline is incorrect. That's why we know anything that came from the Seleucid period that establishes the Neo-Babylonian chronology and anything built upon it is also incorrect, that is, if we give the Bible the precedent, and not man's understanding.

What has evidently happened is that the Seleucids, in the third century BCE, came up with what they THOUGHT was the correct chronology based on whatever information that they had at the time. It was not a conspiracy to erase 20 years, they actually thought they had it right but evidently misread the evidence, much in the same manner as it is being misread today.

The problem is that it was missing 20 years and there are a number of theories as to why they missed it. We can talk about some of those theories later. But what happens is that any timeline, including kings' lists, that find their source during the Seleucid period simply carry forth the same error. This problem will resurface time and time again throughout history by any one who relies on Berossus or any one else from that time period.

I am convinced by what we have covered that Berossus got it wrong and actually thought that Neb conquered Jerusalem in his first year of reign, which, guess what, immediately creates nearly a 20 year discrepancy in history. I think that' significant in itself that the one of the "fathers" of this Seleucid theory on chronology, started out with nearly a 20 year mistake. I believe that is at THE HEART OF THAT SAME 20 YEAR MISTAKE BEING REPEATED AND CARRIED DOWN THROUGH HISTORY. I believe that can be demonstrated by proving that the Bible actually requires more than a 50 year exile in order for all the prophecies about that time period to be true. But more on that later as we progress through this a piece at a time.

Surely you do not believe that the exile of the Israelites ended IMMEDIATELY upon the defeat of Babylon do you? Surely you must recognize that there was the passing of at least a small amount of time before they were allowed to go home, don't you? Surely you have to realize that it would have taken at least a small amount of time for them to return to their homeland. If you recognize all that, then you have to admit that the king of Babylon was actually punished BEFORE the 70 year exile was over. There's no other way to see it unless you think they were somehow miraculously back in their homeland IMMEDIATELY upon the defeat of Babylon. No one believes that, do they? Do you?##################################################

Since I don't think this 70 years were directed at the Jews it does not mean anything to me when they left. The prophecy says it was for Babylon. The prophecy in Jeremiah 25 does not say when the 70 years ended his people will come out, but that he would bring judgment on Babylon. I know Jews made it to Judea in 537 BCE, but not even then the Temple was rebuilt until 18 years later. That is the 70 years over the temple from 587 BCE-517 BCE, when the temple finally got rebuilt.

##########################################Although some references of the 70 years could be directed to Babylon there are some 70 year references that can only be directed towards Israel's exile. We will get to those later when we discuss those Biblical references and what they must mean according to Biblical precedent.##########################################

Jeremiah 25:10 I will put an end to the sounds of joy and gladness, to the glad celebration of brides and grooms in these lands. I will put an end to the sound of people grinding meal. I will put an end to lamps shining in their houses. 11 This whole area will become a desolate wasteland. These nations will be subject to the king of Babylon for seventy years.’

12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

Three things are predicted in this prophecy: (1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”. (2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. (3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the Chaldeans.

It was not only in regards to the Jews. So, it does not matter when they left. You tie it to the destruction of the Temple, but the Prophecy does not say that it says "these nations" not just Judea.

##############################################Once again there are a number of things here to consider, and really, we should put these Biblical discussion into a different thread. I will figure out how to split this later or I can rename the topic to included Jeremiah 25:11 and 12 and context. But please, if you want to bring up these other points that are not directly related to Josephus and Berossus, please do so by starting a new topic. It makes for greater research abilities at a later date.

It is quite clear that Jeremiah 25:11 only mentions servitude to Babylon for seventy years by all the aforementioned nations. However, I fail to see how this creates a problem for our understanding. We agree that Israel was in servitude to Neb and his sons for 70 years along with many other nations. The point of departure is that you say the 70 years of servitude started at Charchemish and we say that it started at the destruction of the temple in 607 BCE.

I believe that the context of verse 9-11 can easily be read that the 70 years could start with the desolationof Jerusalem because that is how it follows in the sentence. This is especially probable when we look at the "oracle against the nations" starting in verse 17 because the first one listed is Jerusalem and verse 29 can be read in a manner that makes Jerusalem the beginning of this sword that God was going to bring against many nations.################################################

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "What I am wanting to see is where did BEROSSUS make the statement about his chronology not being reliable before Nabonassar? I see where scholars have mentioned that, but where is the statement by Berossus himself recorded+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[color=#BF0040]It works the same as when you quote Mr. Barclays opinion. I think if Berossus said that the data had been destroyed I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that much of the data had been destroyed. Also, Mr. Burstein says most of the outrageous data that had been attributed to Berossus were not his words.[/color]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#############################################If you wish to present your case with the king's list. Please start a NEW topic. Do NOT put it in this topic. Let's try and keep these things separate.###################################################

I think the Stele section will start touching on the veracity of the Kings list.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You Said "There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT. This can be proven when this Hebrew prefix is found in the book of Daniel in reference to the age of Darius. (Daniel 5:31)It states Darius was ABOUT sixty two years of age. The prefix that constitutes the ABOUT rendering is the Hebrew letter Kec which looks like a backwards capital C. This is the same prefix we find on the word rendered "fulfilled" at Jer. 25:12. So, according to the lexicons, this prefix could change the idea to "ABOUT" fulfilled rather than completely fulfilled, which would harmonize perfectly with the thought that the punishment was within PROXIMITY of the fulfillment of the 70 years, not exact. In other words, it could read,There is a prefix in Hebrew that can carry the meaning of proximity in the sense of ABOUT. This can be proven when this Hebrew prefix is found in the book of Daniel in reference to the age of Darius. (Daniel 5:31)It states Darius was ABOUT sixty two years of age. The prefix that constitutes the ABOUT rendering is the Hebrew letter Kec which looks like a backwards capital C. This is the same prefix we find on the word rendered "fulfilled" at Jer. 25:12. So, according to the lexicons, this prefix could change the idea to "ABOUT" fulfilled rather than completely fulfilled, which would harmonize perfectly with the thought that the punishment was within PROXIMITY of the fulfillment of the 70 years, not exact. In other words, it could read, "when the seventy years are ABOUT fulfilled, the king of Babylon would be punished."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I guess now you know more then the hundreds of scholars that have translated it differently then you. Can you show one respectful translation that has translated it your way (0h, I forgot they are all wrong, but you and the Watchtower are right of course). Also, I don't need to twist the word of God, God did bring judgment upon Babylon as he promised in 539 BCE. It was the beginning of the fulfillment of his punishment for Babylon, but it had to start when the 70 year period had ended not before. When it was completed has nothing to do with the point that it started when the 70 years ended. I don't need to re-interpret the Bible. It seems you love to do that.

NET 12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. NKJV 12 ‘Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquityASV 12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Jehovah, for their iniquity, and the land of the ChaldeansESV 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the ChaldeansNASB 12 ‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the Lord, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the ChaldeansNIV 12 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians,[b] for their guilt,”

AND THIS IS THE ULTIMATE SHOCKER NOT EVEN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

NWT 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error

Does the word "have been fulfilled" has a special meaning for the Watchtower? Or does it mean what it normally means? I am sure you will find many

When did that happen again? Are we going to start arguing that Babylon was not destroyed in 539 BCE? I hope not.

Did all those scholar forgot what the Hebrew word meant? NON OF THEM GAVE IT THIS OPEN ENDED MEANING YOU NOW WANT TO IMPOSE ON THE TEXT.

#############################################As I mentioned above: I can't help it if that prefix is there. I didn't put it there. If it means ABOUT as it does in Daniel 5:31 then it can surely mean it at Jer. 25:12. Whether translators rendered it that way or not is hardly the issue. The real question is: "Is it there or not?" And the answer is "Yes, it is there." With that understanding, the reference in no way contradicts the Biblical account. #############################################

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Not according to Barclay's rendition. Barclay translates that the "city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus". Now the Whiston's transaltion allows for your interpretation but it also allows for mine, but Barclay shows that there is but one way to understand the words. So Barclay clarifies for us how to understand Whiston's translation which means the "during" meant the entire time.

The Greek literally reads "the city was desolated time seventy years". the word rendered "time" is "chronos" which does not mean DURING, but simply an interval of time. If it were in the Dative case, it could refer to the time during which something occurs, but this is in the Accusative and therefore does not work. You can confirm this through the use of lexicons and interlinears of which can be found online.

DURING is nothing more than an unwarranted interpolation. So according to the Greek it clearly states that the city was desolated for 70 years, not DURING 70 years_______________________________________________

I will analyze it further. The problem Is that the Kings list timeline , do not allow for 70 year from the 18 year of Nab through 539 BCE or 537 BCE.

The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings according to Berossus:Nabopolasar 21 years 625-605 BCENebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562Awel-Marduck 2 years 561-560Neriglissar 4 years 559-556Labashi-Marduck 9 Months 556Nabonidus 17 Years 555-539[/quote]

#########################################Where can I find the complete list as I think I would like to see it before starting my response to the Hillah and Adad-Guppi thread.##########################################

You added this:

No argument Berossus gave a slightly different detail, but that still does not change the dates of when it happened. Mr. Wiseman holds the same timeline as Berossus. The Niece comment explains what seems to be a contradiction.

########################################Actually, it does change the dates, because if Josephus' account of Berossus puts the destruction of Jerusalem in the first year of Neb, then it's about 19 years too soon according to both Biblical and tradictional chronology. Niece's comment's below do not change a thing as I will explain but first, I want to point something out to you.

What you call Niece's comments are actually "Barclay's" comments via the Brill publication. Check it out on the PACE site and you will see what I mean.

So now you are using Barclay's words to find agreement when up to this point you have discredited him severely, so which is it?

You do realize then that Barclay also says this, in fact it is the VERY NEXT section AFTER the one you just quoted:

440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

Here, Barclay, or Niece as you call it, clearly states that Josephus compressed the captivities into ONE account. Why? in order to MATCH BEROSSUS' ACCOUNT. So Barclay admits that the Berossus account did indeed treat the captivites as if they all happened at once.

Plus, Barclay also says this in the VERY NEXT section:

441 Reading πρώτου (“the first”) with Schreckenberg (and Reinach), following Eusebius. This summary covers both the citations to follow (1.135-41, 146-53), but the biblical figure of 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10 [=LXX 36:10]; Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; Ant. 10.112, 184; 11.1; 20.233) is not justified by the later calculations (1.154, 159), and is quietly forgotten. Its inclusion here suggests how much Josephus writes this introduction in biblical mode, while claiming to say no more than Berosus. For the utter desertion of the city (excusing the failure to rebuild the temple for two generations), cf. Ant. 10.184.

Barclay admits that there is conflict between the Biblical 70 years and the later calculations of 50 years. But he states that it is just quietly forgtten by Josephus. This is hardly an endorsement of trust in either Berossus' or Josephus' calculations here. And notice that Barclay agrees that the Bible actually assigns 70 years, not 50.

Also this:

IN section 453 Barclay says this:

He had related the successive stages of subjugation of Judea in Ant. 10.84-150, closely following the biblical account. He cannot find in Berosus the justification to repeat any of that narrative here.

Barclay once again shows the conflict between Josephus understanding of things and the words of Berossus.

Notice the following:

488 Berosus’ moral tone justifies the change of regime; his pride in the Babylonian kingdom does not mean whitewashing all its rulers. In Ant. 10.229-31 Josephus had followed the biblical story (2 Kgs 25:27-30 = Jer 52:31-34) in recording this king’s kindness to “Jechonias”; he also attributed to him there an 18-year reign (see Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 294, n.987). Here Josephus seems unable, or at least unwilling, to reconcile Berosus’ account with that of his scriptures.

Again showing the conflict between Josephus and Berossus, which Josephus clearly tries to minimize to find as much agreement as he can.

Josephus acquiesces to Berossus' 4 years instead of the 40 he gave him earlier.

505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

Notice again as I pointed out earlier, Barclay realizes that Josephus KNEW that Berossus placed the event of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first year of Neb, NOT his 18th. This is exactly what is reflected in chapter 19 as I have pointed out. This confirms it as true that Berossus definitely placed the destruction of the temple in Neb's frist year and it demonstrates that I have been reading chapter 19 correctly, because that is exactly how chapter 19 presents it.

Now on to the quote that you presented. Let's see if it tells us anything that would change anything thusfar established.########################################

b]Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus’ reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus’ understanding of history).

Niece actually does not believe that Berossus mentioned the Temple, since it was not an actual quote verbatim.hperez

#######################################This did not change anything form what is said esewhere by Barclay about Berossus' error. When it states that the narrative is severely compressed it is because Josephus did not bother to mention all the nations that Berossus did in that spot in chaspter 19, just Egypt and Jerusalem because that is who is important in this context. The only thing which possibly was added by Josephus was the destruction of the temple, but this doesn't change anything in regard to the rest of Berossus' account that he records.

If we leave out the reference to the temple destruction in chapter 19 the result is the same. It still says that it was Neb's FATHER NAB that told him to attack Egypt AND Jerusalem. That proves that Berossus thought it was all the same action and that the captives were all taken at the same time. The only difference is the reference to the temple which was an unwise insertion at that spot by Josephus.

But we know it did not change the fact that Berossus did indeed think that Jerusalem was attacked and destroyed in the fiorst year of Neb, not the 18th. The other quotes by Barclay that I provided, whom you now apparently trust, definitely show that to be the case because they were made by the same author just a few comments later as I have shown.

There really is no salvaging the fact that Berossus was off by about 20 years. That's an interesting difference, is it not?

YOU CAN KEEP QUOTING BARCLAY ALL YOU WANT, BUT I DONT HAVE HIS WORD AS FINAL. WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON FACTS ARQUEOLOGY, ASTRONOMY, ETC. YOU ONLY HAVE BARCLAY, I HAVE ALREDY MADE THE CASE WHY I DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW ON BARCLAYS VIEW. YOU ALSO KEEP BRINGING QUOTES FROM EARLIER WORKS OF JOSEPHUS WHEN I ALREADY BROUGHT THE FACT HE CORRECTED HIMSELF LATER. YOU DONT EVEN WANT TO ADDRESS A REAL CONTEXT WITHIN THE BOOK "AGAINST APION" PARG 20 (THE KINGS LIST), BUT YOU CONTINUE TO QUOTE FROM OTHER EALIER BOOKS AS IF THEY HAVE MORE WEIGHT INTO THE MATTER. I CONSIDER THAT INCONSISTENT TO SAY THE LEAST, THE KINGS LIST IS A DIRECT CONTEXT TO JOSEPHUS COMMENTS IN PAR 19 AND 21. I DO NOT AGREE HE SAID 70 YEARS OF DESOLATION OF THE TEMPLE ANYWHERE IN THAT TEXT, SO WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. WE CAN START TACKLING REAL DATA WHICH CORROBORATE BEROSSUS KINGS LIST. YOU CAN BRING ALL THE RETORIC YOU WANT WHICH IS A WATCHTOWER TACTIC, BUT DONT WANT TO FACE REAL DATA, WHY DON T YOU START EXPLAINING AWAY NABON 8 STELE AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You said "Although 539 BCE could be said to mark the end of a 70 year dominance by Babylon via Neb and his sons, I will show, eventually, (likely in another thread) that it did not mark the end of the 70 year exile of Israel

=================================================

I am not even talking about Israel, because the 70 years 'for babylon' would end when God punished Babylon not when Israel came out of Babylon. You are mistaking two different things the exile of Israel was not limited in the words of Jeremiah 25:12 as I have already pointed out in the last thread.

You missed what I said: Jeremiah 25:10 I will put an end to the sounds of joy and gladness, to the glad celebration of brides and grooms in these lands. I will put an end to the sound of people grinding meal. I will put an end to lamps shining in their houses. 11 This whole area will become a desolate wasteland. These nations will be subject to the king of Babylon for seventy years.’

12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

Three things are predicted in this prophecy: (1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”. (2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. (3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the Chaldeans.

It was not only in regards to the Jews. So, it does not matter when they left. You tie it to the destruction of the Temple, but the Prophecy does not say that it says "these nations" not just Judea.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "What has evidently happened is that the Seleucids, in the third century BCE, came up with what they THOUGHT was the correct chronology based on whatever information that they had at the time. It was not a conspiracy to erase 20 years, they actually thought they had it right but evidently misread the evidence, much in the same manner as it is being misread today.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before you make that statement Lets analyze the evidence they had and see if they just made a mistake. Nabon 8 Stele, maybe we can start with that. I would think they had better sources and more accurate then we have now days, to think otherwise it will be for you to show.

So, you truly believe as accurate as the were keeping records and tracking astronomical events they simply just missed 20 years out of the blue moon? Ok

Atually the Stele in the Nab 8 by itself proof that the Kings list Josephus quotes from Berossus is correct. You would have to show it is not.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You said "Actually, it does change the dates, because if Josephus' account of Berossus puts the destruction of Jerusalem in the first year of Neb, then it's about 19 years too soon according to both Biblical and tradictional chronology. Niece's comment's below do not change a thing as I will explain but first, I want to point something out to you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Where can I find the complete list as I think I would like to see it before starting my response to the Hillah and Adad-Guppi thread.

#######################################

The following list is complete according to all the Chronicles that have been found. Also, you can find the list In Paragraph 20 as you well know from Berossu. The following lists have all been corroborated by Archeological findings it is up to you to proof they are wrong. Just because you don't want to deal with facts just rhetoric does not change the facts.

The figures he gives for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You put all the chips on Barclay's rendition. I look at what others beside him have stated. I don't agree as many other scholars have a different view then Barclay.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Actually, it does change the dates, because if Josephus' account of Berossus puts the destruction of Jerusalem in the first year of Neb, then it's about 19 years too soon according to both Biblical and tradictional chronology. Niece's comment's below do not change a thing as I will explain but first, I want to point something out to you.

What you call Niece's comments are actually "Barclay's" comments via the Brill publication. Check it out on the PACE site and you will see what I mean.

So now you are using Barclay's words to find agreement when up to this point you have discredited him severely, so which is it?

You do realize then that Barclay also says this, in fact it is the VERY NEXT section AFTER the one you just quoted:

440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

Here, Barclay, or Niece as you call it, clearly states that Josephus compressed the captivities into ONE account. Why? in order to MATCH BEROSSUS' ACCOUNT. So Barclay admits that the Berossus account did indeed treat the captivites as if they all happened at once.

Plus, Barclay also says this in the VERY NEXT section:

etc etc+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then, I hope you agree with Barclay when he said "b]Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference)." Showing, it was not a direct quotation of Berossus account, but Josephus compresses the narrative.

_++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't You agree with Barclay on the above quote.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You said "Once again there are a number of things here to consider, and really, we should put these Biblical discussion into a different thread. I will figure out how to split this later or I can rename the topic to included Jeremiah 25:11 and 12 and context. But please, if you want to bring up these other points that are not directly related to Josephus and Berossus, please do so by starting a new topic. It makes for greater research abilities at a later date.

It is quite clear that Jeremiah 25:11 only mentions servitude to Babylon for seventy years by all the aforementioned nations. However, I fail to see how this creates a problem for our understanding. We agree that Israel was in servitude to Neb and his sons for 70 years along with many other nations. The point of departure is that you say the 70 years of servitude started at Charchemish and we say that it started at the destruction of the temple in 607 BCE.

I believe that the context of verse 9-11 can easily be read that the 70 years could start with the desolationof Jerusalem because that is how it follows in the sentence. This is especially probable when we look at the "oracle against the nations" starting in verse 17 because the first one listed is Jerusalem and verse 29 can be read in a manner that makes Jerusalem the beginning of this sword that God was going to bring against many nations+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never said it started at Carquemis, but it did in 609 BCE when Assyria was given a final defeat. 609 B.C.E. marked the definite end of the Assyrian empire is the prevailing view among leading authorities today (the start of he 70 years of servitude included the nations so all it needed was one nation to kick in the start of the prophecy ). Some typical statements are quoted in the following:

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA — 609 B.C.E. ”In 610 the Babylonians and their allies took Harran, and Ashur-uballit with the wreckage of his forces fell back across the Euphrates into the arms of the Egyptians. An attempt (in 609) to retake Harran failed miserably. Assyria was finished.”— Professor John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), p. 316. In 609 B.C.E. “Assyria ceased to exist and her territory was taken over by the Babylonians.”— Professor D. J. Wiseman in The 54 The term used for the Medes in the chronicle, “Umman-manda,” has often been taken to refer to, or at least include, the Scythian. This hypothesis appears to be untenable in the light of recent research. See the extensive discussion by Stefan Zawadzki in The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), pp. 64– 98. 55 According to the Babylonian chronicle BM 21901 the two armies set out against Harran in Arahsamnu, the eighth month, which in 610 B.C.E. roughly corresponded to November in the Julian calendar. After the capture of the city they returned home in Addaru, the twelfth month, which roughly corresponded to March in the following year, 609 B.C.E. Most probably, therefore, the city was captured early in 609 B.C.E.—A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: JJ. Augustin Publisher, 1975), pp. 95–96. 234 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (ed.), 2nd ed. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 101. ”In 609, the Babylonians finally routed the Assyrians and began the establishment of their control over Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine.”—The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev in History of Humanity, Vol. III, ed. by J. Herrman & E. Zürcher (Paris, London, New York: UNESCO, 1996), p. 117. ”In 609 Assyria was mentioned for the last time as a still existing but marginal formation in northwestern Mesopotamia. After that year Assyria ceased to exist.”—Stefan Zawadzki in The Fall of Assyria (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), p. 16.

Thus, the seventy years “for Babylon” may also be reckoned from 609 B.C.E. From that year the Babylonian king regarded himself as the legitimate successor of the king of Assyria, and in the following years he gradually took over the control of the latter’s territories, beginning with a series of campaigns in the Armenian mountains north of Assyria[/color].

you are mixing two different prophecies and fulfillment and that is the problem

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Once again, I am not sure you understood the point I was making. Of course God did indeed punish Babylon after the 70 years were ended. But my point was that the punishment that is mentioned in that sentence did not happen for centuries later. Do you realize that or not?

God also punished the king of Babylon BEFORE the 70 year exile was completed, or, according to the mentioned "prefix", ABOUT the time the 70 years was fulfilled. I can't help it if that prefix is there. I didn't put it there. If it means ABOUT as it does in Daniel 5:31 then it can surely mean it at Jer. 25:12. Whether translators rendered it that way or not is hardly the issue. The real question is: "Is it there or not?" And the answer is "Yes, it is there." With that understanding, the reference in no way contradicts the Biblical account.

The Biblical account demands a longer exile than 50 years in order for the 40 year desolation of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar to have taken place. The 50 year exile also does not allow for the prophecy concerning the demise of Tyre for 70 years. That's why we know the secular timeline is incorrect. That's why we know anything that came from the Seleucid period that establishes the Neo-Babylonian chronology and anything built upon it is also incorrect, that is, if we give the Bible the precedent, and not man's understanding.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We will analyze the data you have mentioned. It is for you to show your version of the meaning of the word means here "about" and not how all the Scholars have translated it. Just because a word might be used in a different way in the different verse does not mean it has to be the same in each occurrence. But actually is not the same sentence structure or word, can you show me why we have to accept an interpretation no Hebrew Scholar holds?

Daniel 5:31------Not all versions have the "about", but the fact that it is here is immaterial to Jeremiah since the sentence structure and the Hebrew text is not parallel.

NIV 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.[i]NBLH (SPANISH BIBLE) 31 [ab]Y Darío el Medo recibió el reino cuando tenía sesenta y dos años.GNV "31 And Darius [a]of the Medes took the kingdom, being threescore and two years old.CEB "31 Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of 62NLT "31 [a]And Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.

Where do you see in Daniels the same sentence structure in Daniel 5:31 to make it read “about” in Jeremiah? I think the Hebrew Scholars knew how to translate it. You dismiss all the Hebrew Scholars but you sure put a lot of credence in one man's words Barclay.

God did not bring judgment to Babylon before the 70 years ended that is your interpretation to fit your view, but it is not what the Bible says.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You keep quoting Barclays as if he is the last word "Barclay once again shows the conflict between Josephus understanding of things and the words of Berossus.Notice the following:

Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference).

It was not a direct quote from Berossus.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said

488 Berosus’ moral tone justifies the change of regime; his pride in the Babylonian kingdom does not mean whitewashing all its rulers. In Ant. 10.229-31 Josephus had followed the biblical story (2 Kgs 25:27-30 = Jer 52:31-34) in recording this king’s kindness to “Jechonias”; he also attributed to him there an 18-year reign (see Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 294, n.987). Here Josephus seems unable, or at least unwilling, to reconcile Berosus’ account with that of his scriptures.

Again showing the conflict between Josephus and Berossus, which Josephus clearly tries to minimize to find as much agreement as he can.

Josephus acquiesces to Berossus' 4 years instead of the 40 he gave him earlier.

505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).

Notice again as I pointed out earlier, Barclay realizes that Josephus KNEW that Berossus placed the event of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first year of Neb, NOT his 18th. This is exactly what is reflected in chapter 19 as I have pointed out. This confirms it as true that Berossus definitely placed the destruction of the temple in Neb's frist year and it demonstrates that I have been reading chapter 19 correctly, because that is exactly how chapter 19 presents it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I disagree with Barclay if he is saying what you are interpreting as do other Scholars such as Wiseman. Plus, you keep repeating what I have already shown to be a contradiction, so we can agree to disagree.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You Said "The Biblical account demands a longer exile than 50 years in order for the 40 year desolation of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar to have taken place. The 50 year exile also does not allow for the prophecy concerning the demise of Tyre for 70 years. That's why we know the secular timeline is incorrect. That's why we know anything that came from the Seleucid period that establishes the Neo-Babylonian chronology and anything built upon it is also incorrect, that is, if we give the Bible the precedent, and not man's understanding.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The seventy years for Tyre at Isaiah 23:15–18 I will not argue on its interpretation, as it cannot be proved that they refer to the period of Neo-Babylonian supremacy. Some scholars, in fact, apply it to circa 700–630 B.C.E., when Tyre was controlled by Assyria. See, for example, Dr. Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon (= Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 4) (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1970), pp. 97–102.

Interestingly, the Watch Tower writers, too, seem finally to have realized this. Commenting on the 70 years that Tyre would be forgotten according to Isaiah 23:15–17—a period they equate with the 70 years for Babylon—their recent commentary on Isaiah says: “True, [b]the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination . . . Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.” (Isaiah’s Prophecy. Light for All Mankind, Vol 1, 2000, p. 253) These remarkable statements are more or less a reversal of earlier views.

No it does not contradict the Bible you are the one that has to twist the bible to fit your view. Since you brought up Egypt that would be an interesting subject. [/b]

Lets examine the the chronology of the Saite period of the Egyptian kings because they correspond with the Kings list of Berossus. All that also has been corroborated by Archeology I guess another coincidence.

When we examine, , the chronology of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty of Egypt is soundly and independently established. The results are summarized in the following table:

Since you keep confusing to whom the Prophecy of Jeremiah 25 applies to, why don't we have a different discussion on that subject. You keep saying I can show how the Jews did not come out of Babylon in 539 BCE, which I agree they did not, but the prophecy of 70 years in Jeremiah 25, was not for Israel, but for Babylon. The other aspect of the Prophecy is was it "servitude" or "total desolation" and to whom. I do agree the Temple laid desolate for 70 years, but that period(separate fulfillment) was from 587 BCE-517 BCE in reference to the words in Zachariah.

The main thing about understanding the prophecy in Jer 25, is to understand for whom was it directed to "Judea" or "Babylon's Supremacy" over the nations?

The other factor is determining if the Zechariah 1:7-12 "70 year period" is the same as the Jeremiah 25:12 "70 year" period. I contend they are not the same period, the Jeremiah's 70 years included the supremacy of Babylon over the nations, but the "70 years" in Zechariah is directly related to the period the "Temple" would be destroyed.

hperez wrote:YOU CAN KEEP QUOTING BARCLAY ALL YOU WANT, BUT I DONT HAVE HIS WORD AS FINAL. WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON FACTS ARQUEOLOGY, ASTRONOMY, ETC. YOU ONLY HAVE BARCLAY, I HAVE ALREDY MADE THE CASE WHY I DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW ON BARCLAYS VIEW. YOU ALSO KEEP BRINGING QUOTES FROM EARLIER WORKS OF JOSEPHUS WHEN I ALREADY BROUGHT THE FACT HE CORRECTED HIMSELF LATER. YOU DONT EVEN WANT TO ADDRESS A REAL CONTEXT WITHIN THE BOOK "AGAINST APION" PARG 20 (THE KINGS LIST), BUT YOU CONTINUE TO QUOTE FROM OTHER EALIER BOOKS AS IF THEY HAVE MORE WEIGHT INTO THE MATTER. I CONSIDER THAT INCONSISTENT TO SAY THE LEAST, THE KINGS LIST IS A DIRECT CONTEXT TO JOSEPHUS COMMENTS IN PAR 19 AND 21. I DO NOT AGREE HE SAID 70 YEARS OF DESOLATION OF THE TEMPLE ANYWHERE IN THAT TEXT, SO WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. WE CAN START TACKLING REAL DATA WHICH CORROBORATE BEROSSUS KINGS LIST. YOU CAN BRING ALL THE RETORIC YOU WANT WHICH IS A WATCHTOWER TACTIC, BUT DONT WANT TO FACE REAL DATA, WHY DON T YOU START EXPLAINING AWAY NABON 8 STELE AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE.

#############################Long sections of all caps usually means you're yelling. There's no reason to yell. I am starting to think that you are not reading everything because you only respond to select items that I have offered and that makes for an ineffective argument from you. If you want to have success in an argument, you need to respond to everything that is offered as long as it is relevant to the topic at hand. But there are a few things that you said above that I need to address because they are inaccurate.

You will find that I do not ONLY HAVE BARCLAY as you claim. Besides, you claim yourself that you found agreement with him so he can't be all bad, right? I will be quoting from a number of different scholars along the way and primarily from scripture itself. You and those reading along will see that I do not stand alone on Barclay.

I have no problem addressing the king's list as I will demonstrate when we get to the Nabon 8 stele (Hillah) in the other thread. Patience, my friend. Patience. It is taking me a while to present my first response in that thread because there are some quotes that I have to write out myself rather than copy and paste, and unfortunately, my time is limited at the moment, but don't worry, it will come soon enough,

You claim you do not agree that he said 70 years desolation in the 19 chapter but I have shown you that is exactly what the Greek text says. The word DURING is unwarranted, so there is no ambiguity there as to what was meant. You can deny it all you want, but then you're just cherry picking, the same thing you accuse us of.#########################################

I am not even talking about Israel, because the 70 years 'for babylon' would end when God punished Babylon not when Israel came out of Babylon. You are mistaking two different things the exile of Israel was not limited in the words of Jeremiah 25:12 as I have already pointed out in the last thread.

You missed what I said: Jeremiah 25:10 I will put an end to the sounds of joy and gladness, to the glad celebration of brides and grooms in these lands. I will put an end to the sound of people grinding meal. I will put an end to lamps shining in their houses. 11 This whole area will become a desolate wasteland. These nations will be subject to the king of Babylon for seventy years.’

12 “‘But when the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation for their sins. I will make the land of Babylon an everlasting ruin. I, the Lord, affirm it!

Three things are predicted in this prophecy: (1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”. (2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. (3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the Chaldeans.

It was not only in regards to the Jews. So, it does not matter when they left. You tie it to the destruction of the Temple, but the Prophecy does not say that it says "these nations" not just Judea.

#############################################Again, you are obviously not understanding all of my argument.

For instance, No.1 I completely agree with.

No. 2 I completely agree that whoever is referred to as "these nations" would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. The question is, "How encompassing is the term "these nations""? Does it go clear back to the conquering of Assyria or does it start with the desolation and conquering of Jerusalem? There is no way to be certain from what is said in verse 9-11.

However, as I mentioned, the "oracle against the nations" which starts in verse 17 BEGINS with Jerusalem and then it is followed by a list of nations that were not subjugated until after Jerusalem fell or at least in very close proximity to its fall. Plus verse 29 makes it seem as though God said he BEGAN with his OWN city first with this SWORD that he was bringing against all the nations in that list.

No. 3 has already been dealt with. Due to that prefix it could very well read ABOUT and not just FULFILLED. You need to check this out in the lexicons and the interlinears for yourself. I see you mention this again below so I will address it further there and point out where your reasoning and your observations are faulty.################################################

Before you make that statement Lets analyze the evidence they had and see if they just made a mistake. Nabon 8 Stele, maybe we can start with that. I would think they had better sources and more accurate then we have now days, to think otherwise it will be for you to show.

################################################Coming soon in the other thread about the Hillah Stele and Adad-Guppi.################################################

So, you truly believe as accurate as the were keeping records and tracking astronomical events they simply just missed 20 years out of the blue moon? Ok

#####################################Yes, that is exactly what I see as happening because Berossus, the main figure in all of these calculations, did so about 300 years after the fact. They could have misread the evidence that was available and if they somehow latched onto the Adad-Guppi Stele and used it as a source, and if it was erroneous, which I will demonstrate it could very well be, then the 20 year mistake has just been perpetuated down throughout history to this day. I believe that the near 20 year error made by Berossus is indicative of that skewed chronoilogical format created by the Seleucids.

I think I can demonstrate that there are a lot of errors in the Adad-Guppi Stele and that the Hillah Stele does not actually say what you think it does, but more on that when I get everything compiled for the other thread.####################################

Atually the Stele in the Nab 8 by itself proof that the Kings list Josephus quotes from Berossus is correct. You would have to show it is not.

##########################################We will see when we get into that thread.#########################################

You said "Where can I find the complete list as I think I would like to see it before starting my response to the Hillah and Adad-Guppi thread.

The following list is complete according to all the Chronicles that have been found. Also, you can find the list In Paragraph 20 as you well know from Berossu. The following lists have all been corroborated by Archeological findings it is up to you to proof they are wrong. Just because you don't want to deal with facts just rhetoric does not change the facts.

The figures he gives for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by those ancient cuneiform documents.

################################################I am talking about the COMPLETE king list down throughout history, both before and after this period of time. Where can that be found?################################################

You put all the chips on Barclay's rendition. I look at what others beside him have stated. I don't agree as many other scholars have a different view then Barclay.

############################################Please show me what other scholars have said about Against Apion Book 1, chapters 19-21 that disagree with Barclay's observations. I would like to see those.############################################

Then, I hope you agree with Barclay when he said "b]Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference)." Showing, it was not a direct quotation of Berossus account, but Josephus compresses the narrative.

############################################I can't believe that you simply blew past all of those quotes from Niece/Barclay which contradict your view and you landed on the one comment that you erroneously think supports your view. That, in my opinion, is very disingenuous. The quote you offered does not in anyway overturn what Barclay repeated more than once about Berossus believing that the fall of Jerusalem was at the same event as the attack on Egypt. I hope the readers notice how you just skip over evidence like this as if it wasn't even there.########################################

Don't You agree with Barclay on the above quote.

#########################################I do agree with his quote. Did you not see what I said about it in my last post or did you just blow right past it? Apparently so. You should go back, rearead it, and then take another run at it because you must have completely missed it.#########################################

I never said it started at Carquemis, but it did in 609 BCE when Assyria was given a final defeat. 609 B.C.E. marked the definite end of the Assyrian empire is the prevailing view among leading authorities today (the start of he 70 years of servitude included the nations so all it needed was one nation to kick in the start of the prophecy ). Some typical statements are quoted in the following:

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA — 609 B.C.E. ”In 610 the Babylonians and their allies took Harran, and Ashur-uballit with the wreckage of his forces fell back across the Euphrates into the arms of the Egyptians. An attempt (in 609) to retake Harran failed miserably. Assyria was finished.”— Professor John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), p. 316. In 609 B.C.E. “Assyria ceased to exist and her territory was taken over by the Babylonians.”— Professor D. J. Wiseman in The

54 The term used for the Medes in the chronicle, “Umman-manda,” has often been taken to refer to, or at least include, the Scythian. This hypothesis appears to be untenable in the light of recent research. See the extensive discussion by Stefan Zawadzki in The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), pp. 64– 98. 55 According to the Babylonian chronicle BM 21901 the two armies set out against Harran in Arahsamnu, the eighth month, which in 610 B.C.E. roughly corresponded to November in the Julian calendar. After the capture of the city they returned home in Addaru, the twelfth month, which roughly corresponded to March in the following year, 609 B.C.E. Most probably, therefore, the city was captured early in 609 B.C.E.—A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: JJ. Augustin Publisher, 1975), pp. 95–96.

234 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (ed.), 2nd ed. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 101. ”In 609, the Babylonians finally routed the Assyrians and began the establishment of their control over Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine.”—The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev in History of Humanity, Vol. III, ed. by J. Herrman & E. Zürcher (Paris, London, New York: UNESCO, 1996), p. 117. ”In 609 Assyria was mentioned for the last time as a still existing but marginal formation in northwestern Mesopotamia. After that year Assyria ceased to exist.”—Stefan Zawadzki in The Fall of Assyria (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), p. 16.

Thus, the seventy years “for Babylon” may also be reckoned from 609 B.C.E. From that year the Babylonian king regarded himself as the legitimate successor of the king of Assyria, and in the following years he gradually took over the control of the latter’s territories, beginning with a series of campaigns in the Armenian mountains north of Assyria[/color].

you are mixing two different prophecies and fulfillment and that is the problem

##################################################Your problem here is that you are simply parroting the traditional view as if it is proof when that is exactly what is being called into question. You can't use as your source the very thing that is being questioned. That is called "circular reasoning" and you just made a huge circle.

There is nothing in the narrative of Jeremiah 25 that tells us that this seventy years of servitude under Babylon started with Assyria. As I have mentioned above, the "oracle against the nations" started with Jerusalem and verse 29 can corroborate that. With that view, it would mean starting with the desolation of Jerusalem, those nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. That is a completely natural reading of the verses in question, and one that the context supports.#####################################################

We will analyze the data you have mentioned. It is for you to show your version of the meaning of the word means here "about" and not how all the Scholars have translated it. Just because a word might be used in a different way in the different verse does not mean it has to be the same in each occurrence. But actually is not the same sentence structure or word, can you show me why we have to accept an interpretation no Hebrew Scholar holds?

Daniel 5:31------Not all versions have the "about", but the fact that it is here is immaterial to Jeremiah since the sentence structure and the Hebrew text is not parallel.

################################################It's not the sentence structure that is even the issue, it is the fact that there is a PREFIX at the beginning of the word FULFILLED that can mean ABOUT, just like the PREFIX in front of the word rendered as OLD in Daniel 5:31. Sentence structure has nothing to do with it, it's all about the prefix attached to the word. It is either there or it isn't. And since many translators acknowledge that it can mean ABOUT in Daniel, then it is the same thing as acknowledging that it can carry that meaning at Jeremiah 25:11 whether they chose to render it that way or not.###############################################

NIV 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.[i]NBLH (SPANISH BIBLE) 31 [ab]Y Darío el Medo recibió el reino cuando tenía sesenta y dos años.GNV "31 And Darius [a]of the Medes took the kingdom, being threescore and two years old.CEB "31 Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of 62NLT "31 [a]And Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.

Where do you see in Daniels the same sentence structure in Daniel 5:31 to make it read “about” in Jeremiah? I think the Hebrew Scholars knew how to translate it. You dismiss all the Hebrew Scholars but you sure put a lot of credence in one man's words Barclay.

#######################################################Did you even look at the original Hebrew in both Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 25:11? If you did you would not have to ask this question. Look again, and remember, Hebrew is read from right to left, Right in front the word for "fulfilled" you see the KEC, the backward capital C. This is the same prefix that occurs in Daniel 5:31. Please look and see. All you are dealing with is the root word and that is not going to help you see the point. Go look at the text itself in the Hebrew. You will see that same prefix occurs in both places and if it can mean ABOUT in one, it would simpy be blindness to claim it CAN'T mean that in the other. The very fact that numerous translators have recognized that it can mean ABOUT, proves that it can mean it at Jeremiah 25:11.#####################################################

God did not bring judgment to Babylon before the 70 years ended that is your interpretation to fit your view, but it is not what the Bible says.

##################################################It is most certainly one way that the verse can be read as I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt. You have to have some serious blinders on to say it can't be ead that way. You would then have to say the same thing about Daniel 5:31. Are you? #################################################

You keep quoting Barclays as if he is the last word "Barclay once again shows the conflict between Josephus understanding of things and the words of Berossus.Notice the following:

Niece quote says the following which I agree with "439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference).

It was not a direct quote from Berossus.

##############################################Unbeleivable. I directed addressed this claim of yours in the last post and you evidently completely ignored it. This is disingenuous on your part. I guess I will just have to repeat it agian here and hope that THIS time, you actually look at it and deal with it.

Here is what I said at the very end of my last post. Why did you not see it?

"This did not change anything form what is said esewhere by Barclay about Berossus' error. When it states that the narrative is severely compressed it is because Josephus did not bother to mention all the nations that Berossus did in that spot in chapter 19, just Egypt and Jerusalem because that is who is important in this context. The only thing which possibly was added by Josephus was the destruction of the temple, but this doesn't change anything in regard to the rest of Berossus' account that he records.

If we leave out the reference to the temple destruction in chapter 19 the result is the same. It still says that it was Neb's FATHER NAB that told him to attack Egypt AND Jerusalem. That proves that Berossus thought it was all the same action and that the captives were all taken at the same time. The only difference is the reference to the temple which was possibly an unwise insertion at that spot by Josephus. Whether Josephus actuall;y inserted can not be known since we may not have the original words of Berossus.

But we know it did not change the fact that Berossus did indeed think that Jerusalem was attacked and destroyed in the first year of Neb, not the 18th. The other quotes by Barclay that I provided, whom you now apparently trust, (ALSO, the ones you ignored in this post) definitely show that to be the case because they were made by the same author just a few comments later as I have shown.

There really is no salvaging the fact that Berossus was off by about 20 years. That's an interesting difference, is it not?###############################################

I disagree with Barclay if he is saying what you are interpreting as do other Scholars such as Wiseman. Plus, you keep repeating what I have already shown to be a contradiction, so we can agree to disagree.

################################################Again, you are missing the point. What you need to show is where Wiseman and other scholars, that you claimed above, contradict Barclay when it comes to chapters 19-21 of Against Apion. Where do they contradict the idea that Berossus did not think that Jerusalem was defeated in Neb's first year as Barclay has clearly stated. And remember, Barclay was NOT saying that Berossus was right, but he definitely said that Berossus believed it.###############################################

The seventy years for Tyre at Isaiah 23:15–18 I will not argue on its interpretation, as it cannot be proved that they refer to the period of Neo-Babylonian supremacy. Some scholars, in fact, apply it to circa 700–630 B.C.E., when Tyre was controlled by Assyria. See, for example, Dr. Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon (= Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 4) (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1970), pp. 97–102.

Interestingly, the Watch Tower writers, too, seem finally to have realized this. Commenting on the 70 years that Tyre would be forgotten according to Isaiah 23:15–17—a period they equate with the 70 years for Babylon—their recent commentary on Isaiah says: “True, [b]the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination . . . Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.” (Isaiah’s Prophecy. Light for All Mankind, Vol 1, 2000, p. 253) These remarkable statements are more or less a reversal of earlier views.

No it does not contradict the Bible you are the one that has to twist the bible to fit your view. Since you brought up Egypt that would be an interesting subject. [/b]

##############################################Well you will have to address the Tyre situation because I can show beyond any reasonable doubt that the prophecy would have only been fulfilled via what happened in connection with Nebuchadnezzar, regardless of wehat some scholars have to say about it. They have to find some way to get away from it because it will destroy their chronology if they don't, but i wuill show that the Bible is very clear on when it had to be fulfilled so I suggest you actually do address it when I prsent the argument. If you don't, well, that's on you and it will stick out like a sore thumb.

As far as the 40 year desolation of Egypt goes, I think you will find a most difficult rpoblem for the traditional chronoilogy and demands that the period of exile be far longer than 50 years.

What I am goiung to do, because I desire these two prophecies to be handled apart for the sake of later research and clarity for the readers, I will start two threads, one for Tyre and one for Egypt. You can respond as you see fit.###############################################

Lets examine the the chronology of the Saite period of the Egyptian kings because they correspond with the Kings list of Berossus. All that also has been corroborated by Archeology I guess another coincidence.

When we examine, , the chronology of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty of Egypt is soundly and independently established. The results are summarized in the following table:

###########################################Let's save this for the HIllah thread. This thread has already become full of a number of different items. Even though related, it doesn't make for good separation and clarity of presentation for the readers. ##########################################

You added:

Since you keep confusing to whom the Prophecy of Jeremiah 25 applies to, why don't we have a different discussion on that subject. You keep saying I can show how the Jews did not come out of Babylon in 539 BCE, which I agree they did not, but the prophecy of 70 years in Jeremiah 25, was not for Israel, but for Babylon. The other aspect of the Prophecy is was it "servitude" or "total desolation" and to whom. I do agree the Temple laid desolate for 70 years, but that period(separate fulfillment) was from 587 BCE-517 BCE in reference to the words in Zachariah.

The main thing about understanding the prophecy in Jer 25, is to understand for whom was it directed to "Judea" or "Babylon's Supremacy" over the nations?

The other factor is determining if the Zechariah 1:7-12 "70 year period" is the same as the Jeremiah 25:12 "70 year" period. I contend they are not the same period, the Jeremiah's 70 years included the supremacy of Babylon over the nations, but the "70 years" in Zechariah is directly related to the period the "Temple" would be destroyed.

##############################################I think it would be a good idea to start another thread in relation to Jer. 25 and its related texts. Unfortunatley a lot of stuff here in this thread will get repeated in the other one since we already have a good start on that discussion, but, that's okay with me. I just want the readers to know that the Jer. 25 discussion is going to be continued in another thread

So please don't add anything in this thread to the Jer. 25 discussion. If you want to respond to what I have said here in this last thread, just cut and paste the relevant remarks into the new thread. You can start that thread whenever you see fit and I will respond.

I know this results in a number of threads at once but it is far better than jamming everything about this very involved topic into one thread. Thank you for your cooperation in this. I appreciate it. And remember, let's keep the peace.

I thought I would do a summary of the information that I have presented to you about the words of Josephus and Berossus and Barclay's commentary so everyone who is interested can get a picture of where we are at with this. The topic drifted to Jeremiah's words and the Josephus discussion was dropped permaturely.

You claim that Josephus says in chapter 19 of Against Apion, Book 1, that DURING the 70 years, Jerusalem was desolate, allowing for the understanding that the 50 year desolation took place DURING the 70 years. However, as I pointed out, that is not what the Greek allows for.

The word rendered by Whiston as DURING is the Greek "chronos", which does not allow for the meaning of "DURING" as if the time involved were the part of something else. It means TIME. Any inclusion of the word DURING is simply interpolation and has no merit in the text. You said you would look at that. Have you had opportunity to do so?

There are some other questions and observatons I have but I will wait until we cover this first.

I am sure Mr. Whiston knew more Greek then you or I, but when compared to the context paragraph 20 with the kings timeline and paragraph 21 the 50 year period it is all very consistent even if you want to start quoting previous books from Josephus. As I already clarified Josephus corrected himself from previous dates.

Well I doubt if Mr. Whiston knows more Greek than Barclay. Plus, the Greek text does not allow for DURING. How do you explain that? All you have to do is be able to read and see what the word is, and the word is CHRONOS, which does not mean DURING. Look it up!

So Josephus definitely believed, right within the same context of his 50 year adjustment, that Jerusalem was a desert for 70 years. How do you explain that?

"439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To me compressing and make it one and the same is not the same thing. How do you interpret what he said?

I have explained this before more than once. If I answer this again, are you going to answer the question about the word CHRONOS?

Regards,Rotherham

hperez wrote:how do you understand the following comment by Barclay

"439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To me compressing and make it one and the same is not the same thing. How do you interpret what he said?

As I mentioned right above, I have answered this question before, two times in fact.This will be the third time.

Here is what I posted the last time you asked. Please try to keep up.

Unbeleivable. I directed addressed this claim of yours in the last post and you evidently completely ignored it. This is disingenuous on your part. I guess I will just have to repeat it agian here and hope that THIS time, you actually look at it and deal with it.

Here is what I said at the very end of my last post. Why did you not see it?

"This did not change anything form what is said esewhere by Barclay about Berossus' error. When it states that the narrative is severely compressed it is because Josephus did not bother to mention all the nations that Berossus did in that spot in chapter 19, just Egypt and Jerusalem because that is who is important in this context. The only thing which possibly was added by Josephus was the destruction of the temple, but this doesn't change anything in regard to the rest of Berossus' account that he records.

If we leave out the reference to the temple destruction in chapter 19 the result is the same. It still says that it was Neb's FATHER NAB that told him to attack Egypt AND Jerusalem. That proves that Berossus thought it was all the same action and that the captives were all taken at the same time. The only difference is the reference to the temple which was possibly an unwise insertion at that spot by Josephus. Whether Josephus actuall;y inserted can not be known since we may not have the original words of Berossus.

But we know it did not change the fact that Berossus did indeed think that Jerusalem was attacked and destroyed in the first year of Neb, not the 18th. The other quotes by Barclay that I provided, whom you now apparently trust, (ALSO, the ones you ignored in this post) definitely show that to be the case because they were made by the same author just a few comments later as I have shown.

There really is no salvaging the fact that Berossus was off by about 20 years. That's an interesting difference, is it not?

Regards,Rotherham

hperez wrote:how do you understand the following comment by Barclay

"439 The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To me compressing and make it one and the same is not the same thing. How do you interpret what he said?